Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Student Loans

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he now has any proposals to amend the payment deferment arrangements for student top-up loans to include suitable categories of disablement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Under the arrangements we propose, deferment of repayment will depend on graduates' incomes. Disabled graduates will benefit from those arrangements in the same way as other graduates.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that disabled students will have full access to social security benefit? Will he re-examine the scheme to see whether he can provide disabled students with larger top-up loans and longer terms for repayment?

Mr. Jackson: I certainly confirm that, as the White Paper makes clear, disabled students will continue to be able to claim social security benefits and disability allowance, where appropriate. When we set the level of grants that will operate from September 1990, the question will have to be resolved of what to do about the existing allowances in the grant for disabled students. The Government will certainly consider the position sympathetically.

Mr. Ashley: Does the Minister recognise that additional costs for disabled students are very high and that the jobs that they will take up will not pay enough to allow them to repay loans? Therefore, instead of minor adjustments to student top-up loans, is not a complete reappraisal of the grants for disabled students required?

Mr. Jackson: Support for disabled people in general is a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Security. I know that he has considered the matter sympathetically and that there have been considerable improvements in recent years. I do not believe, however, that there is a case for substantial additions beyond the deferment of the obligation to repay that we propose for disabled people who have had the benefit of higher education. One has to think in terms of a category of disablement which is taken care of, dealing in general with people who are disabled

and then the concessions that will be available to disabled students in terms of access to social security and additional allowances.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I was slightly reassured by what my hon. Friend said about reconsidering grants to disabled students. In view of the representations that I and many hon. Members have received from deaf and blind students, we appreciate the excessive obstacles that they must overcome to take advantage of higher education in the same way as sighted and hearing students. Is there not a case for considering an entire reappraisal of the grant allocation to such students rather than the top-up loan scheme?

Mr. Jackson: There are already allowances for disabled students in the grant. We shall consider their future in the context of the overall review of the grant that will have to be made before the new regulations come into operation in September 1990. We shall certainly be looking at that sympathetically.

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received since his recent statement on student top-up loans.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Since my statement on 19 June, I have received 63 representations.

Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise that this policy is absolute folly and that it will reduce educational opportunities? Does he recognise, too, that it will go counter to the intention of the Secretary of State for Health to increase degree opportunities for nurses and that it will force more nurses out of higher education and back into traditional training, which will be worse for both the National Health Service and for nurses?

Mr. Baker: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said on many occasions, we are the only developed country that does not have a system of top-up loans alongside grants. In all those other countries a higher proportion of the relevant age band goes into higher education. It has not acted as a disincentive in other countries, and I do not believe that it will here.

Mr. Pawsey: When my right hon. Friend responds to those representations, will he make a particular point of stressing that the top-up loan scheme will enable substantial additional numbers of students to go into higher education? Will he further make the point that there must be a limit to the amount of taxpayers' support available to students and that, therefore, we are finding a new form of funding? Will my right hon. Friend refer to the three access funds and, if it is at all possible, will he consider increasing them to more than the proposed £5 million each, totalling £15 million?

Mr. Baker: On the latter point, I note what my hon. Friend has said and I am sure that he appreciates that that will be a matter for discussion later in the year in the public expenditure survey round. I also note what my hon. Friend said about the level of access funds. On the other point that my hon. Friend made, I remind the House that the disentitlement to benefit next year for students will amount to about £65 million, but the extra resources available


through top-up loans will amount to £167 million. That is a substantial increase and it means more money for more students.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Why was the Secretary of State economical with the truth when he answered questions on his statement of 17 June about the cost of top-up loans? Why did he talk about the start-up and administrative costs only and not include inflation, the cost to the Department of Education and Science and the ongoing running costs? Surely the reality is that with every additional student there will be additional costs far in excess of what he estimated. If the right hon. Gentleman does not come clean he will be shuffling off the coils of his office with the words of Sir Walter Scott ringing in his ears:
O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman's contribution makes one thankful that the leadership of his party is in the hands that it is—and that is saying a great deal.
The hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. I made my statement on 19 June, not on 17 June; that was the first fact that he got wrong. The costs of the scheme are set out clearly in the White Paper, under the heading "Costs and Savings". Inflation is allowed for and the costs that I gave to the House are contained in the Price Waterhouse report on the recurrent and running costs. If the hon. Gentleman wants to engage in a serious debate on the matter he must first educate himself in the facts.

Mr. Marlow: I think I am right—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that higher education does not come free. Somebody must pay for it. As it is inappropriate that parents should be responsible for their adult children and also totally inappropriate that the vast majority of taxpayers, who do not enjoy and are unlikely to enjoy the benefits and privileges of higher education, should pay more than a certain amount for higher education, is it not right that those who are to receive the benefits and privileges of higher education should find some of the money for their own benefit and education?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. The White Paper said that in 1984 student support for living costs per year was about £700 a student in Britain, £70 in Germany and £30 in Japan. We have a generous system of support for students. We believe that it is reasonable for the costs of the living expenses of students to be borne by three parties: the state—the grants will continue—their parents, whom we assess for contributions, and the students themselves through what will be a generous top-up loan scheme.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister recognise that there is concern in education circles about the scheme, which was notably expressed yesterday by the chancellor of the university of Ulster? Last week two leading academics said that they would welcome the interest-free loan for themselves because it was tax free, but were worried that poorer families would not wish to put themselves into debt.

Mr. Baker: Protections are built into the scheme, one of which is that the obligation to repay the top-up loan will not start for nine months until after a student has left university. There will be no obligation to repay until the salary of the graduate is at least 85 per cent. of the average national wage. At the moment there is almost no graduate

unemployment and those graduates who are unemployed are so by choice. Most graduates have salaries a third to a half higher than the national average wage.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many taxpayers who have not had the benefit of further education and, as a consequence, are unlikely to have the same salary expectations as graduates, would see the top-up loan as a useful personal investment for students? They would resent paying the entire bill, as at present, for further education.

Mr. Baker: That is a very fair point. The Opposition want more generous and higher grants, but they must come out of taxable income, which is paid by many people who, as my hon. Friend said, have never been or are never likely to go to university or polytechnic. It is also unlikely that their families will do so. It is reasonable to say that people who attend higher education institutions should make a substantial investment in their own future. The Economist estimates that that investment has a pay off of about 24 per cent. It is entirely reasonable that students should be expected to make some contribution on terms that are the most generous of any top-up loan scheme that I have seen in the western world. I believe that our scheme will be very popular.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is deliberately confusing his Back-Bench Members—[Interruption.] Perhaps they are confused already. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the taxpayer will pay more for the new scheme than he currently pays for the student grant scheme, but the student will get less. It is another example of the shambles of the scheme.
If the right hon. Gentleman is so confident about the costings of the scheme, why does he not publish the Price Waterhouse report? Why does he not publish the detailed costings done by his Department, including debt collecting, set-up, depreciation, central Government and college costs? He knows that the costings in the White Paper are both selective and defective. Why does he not publish the costs of the indemnity which, according to last Saturday's Financial Times, is being demanded by the banks not only against a change of Government, but against a change of Government policy? What is the premium on that indemnity, or is the risk so great that no one will take it?

Mr. Baker: The risk of this Government changing and giving way to a Government who would be damaging to the country is not very substantial and would be an insurable risk.
The Price Waterhouse report was commissioned by the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers. I shall be having a word with the committee's chairman later. My preference is to publish the report and I hope to place copies of it in the Library later this week.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statistics in the White Paper which set out the costings of the scheme. He must realise that the scheme will be welcomed by many hundreds of thousands of students, such as the 120,000 students who currently do not receive any grant because they are means-tested out of it; the 160,000 students whose grants are reduced by the means test; and the 50,000 students who do not receive mandatory awards. All those people will benefit substantially from the top-up loan scheme.

Licensed Teachers

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what will be the minimum and maximum qualifications required to enable individuals to qualify for licensed teacher status; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): Candidates for licensed teacher status must have successfully completed at least two years full-time higher education or the part-time equivalent; have attained a standard in English and mathematics equivalent to GCSE grade C; and have reached the age of 26 before they take up their post as a licensed teacher.

Mr. Greenway: How many teachers does my hon. Friend expect to recruit into the classrooms through the device of licensed teachers? Will he expand upon his answer and give the House and the country an assurance that those taken into the scheme will be thoroughly and satisfactorily qualified to teach at the level to which they are assigned?

Mr. Butcher: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The beauty of the licensed teachers scheme is that there will be two years of training which will be assessed and, if satisfactorily completed, will permit that teacher to go into the classroom on a qualified and professional basis. That contrasts with the current position of no requirement for formal training. Indeed, a number of teachers who do not have formal training are already in the classrooms, although that is not to suggest that they are not very good teachers. Our objective is to broaden the catchment without eroding professional standards in the classroom.

Mr. Madel: What will be the compulsory age for retirement for licensed teachers, and will it be the same for men as for women?

Mr. Butcher: The retirement conditions that pertain for those who qualify through the traditional route will also pertain for those who come through the licensed teachers scheme. Our whole objective is that once licensed teachers are in the classroom, they should have equal opportunities, terms and conditions across the board.

Schools (Ancillary Workers)

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received any representations concerning the pay of school secretaries and ancillary workers in schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Butcher: My right hon. Friend receives occasional letters on this subject.

Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister agree that the current salary scale for school secretaries is lamentably low? Does he further agree that the role of school secretaries has changed enormously during the past few years, both in their administrative and in their financial responsibilities? A constituent of mine, Mrs. Jenny Mould, who lives in Thurnby Lodge, is a school secretary and has to perform no fewer than 53 separate functions every day. Will the

Minister consider setting up a national review of the pay and conditions of school secretaries in the light of the great changes that have recently occurred?

Mr. Butcher: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of school secretaries. Head teachers and staff rely on them and the vast majority discharge their duties very well indeed. We have no plans to change the way in which their pay is negotiated. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is done with the local authority associations and most local education authorities tend to go along with the pay and conditions so negotiated. As with many of those who supply education to our young people, their job is changing and that is why about £6 million of the £100 million training and equipment programme, which is part of local management for schools, will be for non-teaching staff, I hope that the secretaries will benefit from that.

Mr. Paice: As we move towards grant-maintained schools and more devolved management responsibility in schools, will not each school be able to make the necessary changes to its pay structure for ancillary staff to meet local circumstances and to match salaries to the job that is done?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend is right. We wish to push responsibility upstream to where it is most required—the chief executive, the head and the governing body. They can make decisions on salaries across a range of activities in the best interests and given the particular needs of their school. That is a major improvement and one of the major advantages of local management for schools.

Teachers (Negotiating Rights)

Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to establish a new negotiating body for teachers' pay.

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to restore negotiating rights to the teaching profession; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am inviting the employers and the teacher unions to further meetings this month to discuss new pay determination arrangements.

Mr. Howells: The Secretary of State will be aware that there is an acute shortage of Welsh language teachers. What advice will he be giving the Secretary of State for Wales on pay, status and the low morale within the profession?

Mr. Baker: I visited a Welsh-language school only a fortnight ago and there was no low morale there. I was impressed with the calibre of its teaching. All its teachers spoke Welsh and the language of instruction was Welsh. They did not tell me that there was any shortage of Welsh teachers in that part of Wales.

Mr. Flannery: The Secretary of State will know that the Select Committee on Education, Arts and Science—not because it wants to but because it has to—is preparing a report on the growing shortage of teachers generally, not merely in the Welsh language. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the removal of the teaching profession's free negotiating rights contributed to the profession's low morale? Yet only now does he tell us that


he will discuss it with the employers. Does he realise that the free trade unionism in a country such as Britain demands that negotiating rights be restored forthwith, which will in turn bring more teachers into the profession?

Mr. Baker: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman remembers, but I had a drink with him on the Terrace last night along with the new general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, Mr. Doug McAvoy. I told Mr. McAvoy that this month we would meet him and other union leaders to try to find a new machinery. There has not been much agreement, but I shall be putting proposals, as no doubt will he, and I hope that a way forward can be found.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not need a national negotiating body but rather regional pay, which will end the unfair treatment of many teachers in the south-east, particularly those who are beyond the reach of London weighting and the like? Should we not have regional pay and the regional funding to go with it?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend makes an important point which I shall discuss with the unions. Many local education authorities have already introduced incentives or inducements of one sort or another to help to recruit teachers, particularly in the south-east and in London. That recognises the regional and local differences in pay levels—which, as I said, is something that I shall discuss with the unions.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given the enormous variations in demand and supply in the country and the move away from national pay negotiations throughout the economy, is there not a strong argument for saying that national wage negotiations are a failed anachronism which should be replaced by school-based bargaining, founded on local knowledge of the demand for, and availability of, teachers?

Mr. Baker: There is some advantage in having a national allowances structure—an important change which we secured in 1987—whereby there is a main professional grade and five allowances over it. I do not want any future machinery to endanger that arrangement, as it is seen as the way forward for the profession. As I said when replying to the previous question, the need for a new negotiating body is raised again and again, and I am clear that whatever may emerge, any machinery must have considerable flexibility to allow for variations as between local education authorities, and as between different parts of the country.

Mr. Fatchett: When the Secretary of State enters into negotiations on the new pay machinery, will he acknowledge that taking away from teachers the right to bargain had a greater impact on their morale than any other decision made by the Government and led to its collapse? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to drag out those negotiations, and will he confirm that next year's pay settlement will come not from the interim advisory committee but will be settled across the negotiating table, between the employers and the teachers' representatives?

Mr. Baker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I shall discuss all those matters with the unions and the employers in the next two or three weeks. I reject completely any

suggestion that the teaching profession is suffering from low morale, on the evidence that each year 25,000 people enter the profession.

Mr. Fatchett: But how many leave it?

Mr. Baker: About the same number. If 25,000 people annually believe that teaching is an interesting and valuable profession, morale within it cannot be low. Since March 1986, teachers have enjoyed a 40 per cent. increase in pay, which is a major adjustment upwards. Many head teachers, for example, received a £2,000 per annum increase this year. That implies that the profession is better rewarded under this Government than it ever was under Labour.

Mr. Holt: When considering whether there should be regional negotiations, perhaps my right hon. Friend will take on board the remarks of the Nalgo official who has just negotiated a deal for his members with Northumbrian Water which he says is amicable, excellent and bodes well for the future?

Mr. Baker: That is very interesting, and I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the trade union leaders whom I meet during the next few weeks. I am sure that the way forward for teachers' pay is a large number of incentive allowances to reward good teaching in the classroom and those teachers who give of their best—which is the great proportion of them—coupled with the flexibility that not only my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) but other of my hon. Friends want to see.

Teacher Shortages

Ms. Gordon: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the Inner London education authority about teacher shortages.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My right hon. Friend met a delegation from the ILEA, led by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), on 13 June. I held a meeting with leaders of the inner London councils on 19 June. On both occasions, practical solutions to the shortages of teachers in London were discussed.

Ms. Gordon: Does the Minister realise that qualified teachers are leaving the profession in droves; that former colleagues who are devoted teachers repeatedly tell me that they feel that they are used as scapegoats and are under intolerable pressures; that in Tower Hamlets, where my constituency is located, 30 per cent. of the teaching staff —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]—have handed in their resignations; that there are at least 300 children without school places that we know of, and many more that we do not know of; that the birth rate is increasing by 20 per cent.; that there are about 1,000 children who will not have school teachers when the next term comes; and that parents who are lucky enough to know that their children will have teachers are receiving letters from headteachers saying that they cannot guarantee—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady make it brief, please?

Ms. Gordon: I shall make it as brief as I can, Mr. Speaker.
Their teachers say that they cannot guarantee to operate the national curriculum, and are telling parents that there are a series of unacceptable measures such as sending children home on a rota basis.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I think that the hon. Lady should do so, in fairness to others.

Mrs. Rumbold: I know that the hon. Lady feels very strongly about these matters. I should tell her that the interim advisory committee, which studied teacher recruitment most recently, came up with exactly the same figures as it produced last year, and the evidence suggests that only 1 per cent. of the total teaching force leaves the profession.
When we discussed the matter with both ILEA and individual leaders of the inner London authorities that are taking over responsibility, we talked about methods of recruitment and retention. I remind the hon. Lady that recruiting teachers is a long-term planning matter, and I therefore rather regret that ILEA did not take it up earlier.

Mr. Tracey: Has my hon. Friend suggested to teachers—and, indeed, parents—that life will be much better under the new education authorities, especially when they are Conservative controlled?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt that the new education authorities, which are working hard in planning both for teacher recruitment and for the delivery of education to children in their boroughs, will provide much better education, especially in the Conservative-controlled boroughs.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that last Thursday, when I asked the Secretary of State how many teachers had submitted their resignations by 31 May 1989, the right hon. Gentleman replied in a written answer that the information was not available, and that the latest data on teacher resignations related to the year ending March 1987? How can the Secretary of State and the Minister dare to evade blame for the major and growing teacher crisis in inner London and elsewhere when, on the Secretary of State's admission, the information that he and the Minister have obtained on resignations is more than two years old?

Mrs. Rumbold: The information to which we referred was collected by ILEA. It is wrong to say that responsibility for the planning and recruitment of teacher numbers lies with the Government; the local education authorities are the managers of the education service within their areas, and they know perfectly well that it takes at least a term to plan recruitment. ILEA, along with every other local authority, should have looked at the problem much earlier.

LEAs (Training Grants)

Mr. Morley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase the financial support available to local education authorities through the local education authority training grants scheme.

Mrs. Rumbold: I announced our plans on 16 May, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). We propose to increase the expenditure which attracts the higher rate of grant by £36 million, or 43 per cent., and to reduce the expediture which attracts the lower rate of grant by £35 million, or 27 per cent.

Mr. Morley: Is the Minister aware that the total expenditure of the LEA training grant scheme between this year and next will be increased by only 1·4 per cent? That is a substantial cut in real terms. On top of that, the grant to LEAs for training schemes will be cut from 70 to 65 per cent., at a time when LEAs and teachers are being asked to do more and more training because of the national curriculum, local management systems and various schemes introduced by the Government. How will it help to expect them to do more and more with fewer and fewer resources, and how will that help teachers' morale?

Mrs. Rumbold: The training grant scheme needs to be looked at together with the other main specific grant programme—education support grants. Many of the ESG programmes also support training, and in 1990–91 training grants and education support grants will together support the largest ever specific education grant programme, costing £355 million.

Mr. Dunn: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time that we had a review of all aspects of training and training grants? Does she agree that it is strange that we should have four great Departments of state all involved with training, when we should really have one Department for training, which should be called the Department of Education and Training?

Mrs. Rumbold: I note my hon. Friend's views on the way in which departmental responsibilities for training should be organised. Bearing in mind the great sum that is spent on teacher training, it is vital that the money is well directed. It is a simple-minded illusion to suggest that more input means greater vaue. What really matters is the way in which the money is spent. We must ensure that training, including in-service training, is prepared and managed in such a way that it achieves the best possible results for teachers.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Minister recognise that the question is about specific grants to local authorities for the training of teachers in service? Is he aware that at a time when local authorities are being asked to expand training for teachers—in view of the national curriculum, the new local financial management and other initiatives being taken by the Government for training teachers—rather than reducing expenditure in real terms, as is happening, and at the same time reducing the amount of money available to local authorities by way of direct support for other national priority areas, the Government should be massively increasing spending on teacher training, irrespective of Government spending in other areas?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman sadly misunderstands the situation. There has been a huge increase in the amount of money for in-service training. It is vital for local authorities to study the way in which that money is managed to ensure that the best possible value is given to the teachers who receive the training. If that is not done,


there will be no point in adding further resources in this sphere, for the management of the money governs the way in which the teachers benefit.

Higher Education (Students)

Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the increase in the number of students enrolled in universities and polytechnics since 1979.

Mr. Jackson: Compared with 1979, provisional figures for 1988 show an increase of around 130,000 higher education students at universities in Great Britain and at English and Welsh polytechnics. The increase is over 200,000 across all higher education in Great Britain.

Mr. Irvine: I thank my hon. Friend for those encouraging figures. Does he agree that they contrast favourably with the situation when Labour was last in power? [Interruption.] Will he confirm that despite all the fine words we hear about the devotion of Labour Members to higher education, when they were in power between 1974 and 1979 the number of students in higher education fell?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are moving towards having 1 million students. Not only are the absolute numbers increasing—which could be explicable because of demographic change—but participation rates have increased. I refer to participation rates of students overall—of mature students, part-time students, women students—of every category of students one cares to name.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If, as the Minister says, participation rates have increased, may I ask him to give the participation rate in 1979, and the present rate, of those who are qualified to participate? Is he aware that the tragedy behind the figures that he has given is that the number of working-class youngsters going into higher education has not increased and that the real problem is that not enough working-class youngsters stay on after 16 years of age? What are the Government doing to encourage them to stay on? Is the Minister aware that the loan scheme will discourage working-class youngsters from staying on beyond 16?

Mr. Jackson: Although there has been a slight increase in the participation rates from social classes 4 and 5 since 1979, the overall performance is extremely disappointing, in spite of 30 years of the most generous grants system in the world. That is one reason that leads the Government to believe that there is a case for the introduction of student loans.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend discuss with the Secretary of State and the authorities the ever-popular view that every polytechnic must become a university? It is very much better to be a leading polytechnic, such as Rolle college and other colleges of that nature, than to be one of the lesser universities. Encouragement should be given to maximising the benefits of polytechnic education which can relieve the pressure on universities.

Mr. Jackson: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government and Parliament took the view in the

Education Reform Act 1988 that there is a distinctive mission for the polytechnics, of which they are entitled to be very proud.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Can the Minister confirm that almost all the expansion to which he refers occurred in local authority polytechnics and colleges before the public expenditure cuts began to bite and before he became a Minister? If his Government's record is so good, why were there 5,000 fewer first degree students in universities in 1987 than there were in 1981, and why has the proportion of admissions from private schools over the last five years gone up while the proportion of admissions from comprehensives has gone down? Does he accept that the Government's shambles of a loans scheme makes these inequalities very much worse?

Mr. Jackson: I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the polytechnics for the excellent work that they have done in expanding the number of their students. The Government do not determine how many students enter the universities. I have often referred to the fact that the unit cost of students at universities has increased since 1979.

National Curriculum

Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what weight he gives to the educational needs of children of those serving in the armed forces in making detailed arrangements for the national curriculum.

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend affords equal treatment to the educational needs of children who attend maintained schools, whatever the occupation of their parents.

Mr. Key: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Is she aware that about 30,000 children attend schools that are run by the Service Children education authority? Will she do her very best to ensure that they do not suffer from having access to fewer facilities and opportunities than are available to children in this country? Will she look in particular at the very difficult question of work experience and at the potential for learning foreign languages that is made available to those many children who live abroad, particularly in West Germany?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. He will be interested to know that I had a discussion last week with some people from schools in Germany. I was able to reassure them that the national curriculum will go a long way towards ensuring continuity of education for those children. We also discussed the teaching of foreign languages, especially German to children who are living in Germany, and work experience. All those matters are being examined.

Mr. Dalyell: What does the hon. Lady mean by "continuity" in that context?

Mrs. Rumbold: Continuity means studying according to the national curriculum, whether in a maintained school in this country or in a school that is maintained in Germany or in another foreign country by the British forces. It will ensure that children who live abroad study roughly the same curriculum as is studied by children in this country.

Teachers (Resignations)

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers in the primary school sector have resigned in the last 12 months.

Mr. Butcher: The latest available data are for the year ending March 1987, when 12,730 teachers left full-time service in the maintained nursery and primary sector in England. Of these, 1,320 transferred to full-time service elsewhere in the maintained sector in England and Wales and 1,300 to part-time service in the maintained sector. A further 4,300 retired and 200 died.

Mr. Livsey: Even allowing for the fact that those figures are two years out of date, do they not suggest that there is a crisis in the primary school sector and that, even according to the Minister's own figures, 15,000 teachers a year will be leaving the profession by 1995? What does he intend to do about preventing primary school teachers from leaving their profession in droves?

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman is utterly wrong. A substantial proportion of those who leave the profession do so for maternity or retirement reasons. That is evidence of a remarkably stable teaching force. As the interim advisory committee has reported, those who leave teaching to go into other professions represent about 1 per cent. of the teaching force. That cannot be described in any way in the terms that the hon. Gentleman used.

Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend commend to other local authorities the excellent scheme run by West Sussex county council to stay in touch with teachers who have left the profession, so that when they have finished whatever duties they may have had away from teaching they can be brought back in at an early stage?

Mr. Butcher: That is an excellent scheme. Through appropriate and imaginative measures, a large number of teachers can he persuaded to re-enter the profession. Their expertise will be greatly welcomed. I am sure that other local authorities are observing that experiment with great interest.

Ms. Armstrong: The Minister's answer confirms that the Government simply do not know what is going on in primary schools. Our evidence from local education authorities throughout the country is that the number of resignations this year is unprecedented. Britain has some of the best primary teaching in the world but the Government's policies are undermining it. What are the Government going to do to support and encourage primary teachers?

Mr. Butcher: One of the great strengths of the British system is the primary sector. Having visited Germany recently I am confirmed in that belief and I pay tribute to our primary school teachers. The Opposition's assertions have more to do with propaganda than with fact. In the primary sector we have a stable work force and the teaching force is behaving professionally. The facts on recruitment into teacher training colleges and loss to other professions confirm that we have a well-motivated and stable primary work force.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Lamond: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the divided families campaign which is concerned with the plight of a very large number of immigrant families who for nearly two decades now have been refused permission for their spouses and families to join them in Britain? Now, through the new DNA fingerprint tests, they can prove without a shadow of a doubt that those people are their families, yet they are still being refused permission to join their families in Britain. Should not something be done by the right hon. Lady to right that injustice, or will she have a nasty taste in her mouth every time she speaks of her concern for family life in Britain?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that immigration into this country, including some of those people who have been waiting for a considerable time, is of the order of 40,000 to 50,000 a year. That is as many as we can possibly cope with.

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend send a message of sympathy to the hard-pressed rail and tube travellers who will undergo yet another strike tomorrow? Will she join me in condemning the union leadership that has inflicted this inconvenience on the public? Does she agree that as in previous public sector disputes, the total and complete silence of the Leader of the Opposition makes him the strikers' friend?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The unions have given no thought to the general public. My hon. Friend is aware that the Government are taking practical steps to help the public get to work tomorrow. Of course the dispute is for the management and unions to resolve, but I believe that three points should be absolutely clear. First, the National Union of Railwaymen and not British Rail has broken the 1956 agreement by refusing to use the established negotiating machinery to settle the question of basic pay. I note that at least one other union has honoured that agreement. Secondly, the British Railways board has offered to meet the NUR at any time and any place to resolve the other outstanding issue—the negotiating machinery. Thirdly, despite the NUR's advertising, the small print makes it absolutely clear that it will not negotiate without pre-conditions.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister constructively and immediately assist in efforts to resolve the rail dispute—first, by strongly encouraging both sides to go hack to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to


discuss all the matters in dispute and, secondly, by stopping those of her interventions that are intended, for obvious partisan reasons, to inflame conflict?

The Prime Minister: I note that the right hon. Gentleman has no thought whatsoever for the travelling public. [Interruption.] Had he listened to my previous reply, he might have found most of the answers to his question. This is a dispute for the management of British Rail and the unions to resolve. With regard to pay, there is a 1956 agreement under which, before industrial action is taken, there should be recourse to the railway staff national tribunal. The NUR has broken that agreement on pay. That tribunal will sit tomorrow and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association is going to it. With regard to negotiating machinery, British Rail has offered to meet the NUR at any time and any place, including ACAS, to try to resolve the other outstanding issues. The NUR is setting pre-conditions to meeting British Rail, which is totally contrary to the 1956 agreement. It should go to ACAS without pre-conditions.

Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister really wants to help rail users, will she come back to the real world of the present and deal with the issue in hand? It must be clear, even to the Prime Minister, that this dispute can be urgently resolved if both parties go to ACAS to discuss all the issues. I urge both parties to do just that. Will she urge them to do that, in the national interest?

The Prime Minister: The National Union of Railwaymen—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be given a chance to answer.

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a 1956 agreement—[Interruption.] Yes. Clearly, Labour does not believe in keeping its agreements. There is a 1956 agreement under which, before there is any—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must be able to hear the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Before there is any industrial dispute, there is a 1956 agreement under which pay should be resolved by using the established negotiating machinery to settle the question of basic pay. The National Union of Railwaymen has broken that agreement. Another union has accepted it and is going to the tribunal to use its services. British Rail has said that it will meet the NUR at any time and any place to try to resolve the outstanding issues on negotiating machinery, but not with preconditions such as that which the NUR has set.

Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister will not act responsibly and do her duty as she should—[Interruption.]—will she at least stop being irresponsible and accept the common-sense argument put by The Daily Telegraph this morning that to "outlaw strikes" in public services
would be an indefensible attack on the employee's liberty to withhold … labour and would be 'unBritish' and could have no place in a polity founded upon freedom"?
Or does the Prime Minister think that the civil right of free trade unionism should stop the other side of the Polish border?

The Prime Minister: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not have a flash of responsibility for once, and condemn the strike? Why does he not ask the National Union of Railwaymen to go to arbitration, which is where they should go and to settle their claim that way, and support the travelling public for once?

Yorkshire and Humberside

Mr. Kirkhope: To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to visit Yorkshire and Humberside.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Kirkhope: Will my right hon. Friend soon be able to visit the Yorkshire and Humberside region? She will see that the gross domestic product has doubled since 1979 and that 17,500 more companies have been established there since 1983. All of that was enhanced by the tremendous success of the urban development corporations of Leeds and Sheffield, which are presently celebrating their first anniversary. Does that not give the lie to the so-called north-south divide?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The creation of jobs, enterprise and a higher standard of living are spreading throughout the country because of the policies that we have pursued. As my hon. Friend knows, I was in Leeds last December, visiting Asda and seeing for myself the tremendous prosperity that exists there and also seeing that the many successful companies are not only creating jobs and raising the standard of living but have a very great community spirit. They presented a large cheque for about £650,000 to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Altogether an excellent record.

Mr. Rees: Yorkshire and Humberside are doing very well on the commercial front—we are all very proud of them—aided by Labour-controlled local authorities. However, manufacturing is in decline, and it has declined mainly since the right hon. Lady's Government came to office. Will she do anything about manufacturing, or is she concerned only about commerce?

The Prime Minister: The north is doing very well indeed because of the economic policies of this Government and because the people have the wit to take up opportunities and do well for themselves by their own efforts, because the enterprise and tax systems urge and encourage them to do so. That is the record of this Government, and may it long continue. The right hon. Gentleman will know that investment in manufacturing is at an all-time record, which augurs very well for the future.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend remember the winter of 1978–79, when people were stranded on railway stations, could not bury their dead, and their children could not have a schools—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question should be about Yorkshire and Humberside.

Mr. Dickens: In Yorkshire and in Humberside. Does she recall what the people did after the so-called strikers' friends did nothing about that? They voted in a Conservative Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, I recall that the then Government were practically run by the unions. The people voted out the Labour Government, reversed the decline, and we have had unrivalled prosperity ever since.

Engagements

Mr. Cartwright: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cartwright: In view of the Prime Minister's well-publicised role as a leader of the campaign against the dangers of the greenhouse effect, why do her Government not accept the amendment to the Electricity Bill, which was carried with all-party support in the other place? It would require electricity suppliers to prove that they are conducting energy efficient activities. Which is most important to the Prime Minister, making the electricity industry attractive to investors, or ensuring that it is genuinely energy efficient?

The Prime Minister: There is, of course, a duty of energy efficiency. If the hon. Gentleman had followed the figures he would know that we are now producing about 25 per cent. more goods than we were producing in 1973, but in 1973 we were using up more energy than we are now. That has been the very great achievement of energy efficiency. Naturally, people will go on trying to get better and better value for money.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mitchell: I welcome the recently announced 6 per cent. decrease in the crime figures, unprecedented in the past 25 years, but does my right hon. Friend agree that in making progress in this important matter, it is extremely important to ensure that parents are held more responsible for the actions of their children?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the recent figures showing a reduction in recorded crime, although, like him, we are still very concerned about the amount of violent crime. I agree that, if parents do not teach children right and wrong and to abide by the law, no other substitute organisation can do so. It is best that children should know those things before they go to school so that teachers can reinforce what they have learnt at home.

Mr. John Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fraser: Following her recent conversations on the subject, what prospect does the Prime Minister hold out for the early release of Nelson Mandela and the commutation of the mass death sentence on 14 people from the town of Upington in South Africa?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have constantly raised the question of the release of Nelson Mandela. I do not believe that any negotiations about the future of South Africa could start between all the peoples who make up that country until his release and the release of two other people there with him are brought about. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when that will come about. I believe that there is a change in South Africa, and that the most important thing is to get the Namibian agreement well under way. I hope that after the next election there will be a movement towards genuine negotiations on the part of all peoples in South Africa, but they would have to be preceded by the release of Mr. Mandela.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

DANGEROUS DOGS

Dame Janet Fookes, supported by Mr. Greg Knight, Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. Matthew Taylor, presented a Bill to extend the powers available to a court on a complaint under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1981 together with additional rights of appeal and enhanced penalties: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the five motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

Resolved,
That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1989 to referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Recovery Vehicles (Number of Vehicles Recovered) Order (Northern Ireland) 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Recovery Vehicles (Number of Vehicles Recovered) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Question agreed to.

Points of Order

Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) named me without observing the usual convention and courtesy of the House by notifying me of his intention to do so, although we had been going through the Division Lobbies only four or five minutes before. In column 45 of Hansard the hon. Gentleman is reported as saying that I had intervened in a vitriolic and trivial way but was not present to explain that to my constituents. Hansard does not make it clear that I did not intervene in yesterday's debate. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning pointed out later, the debate was entirely about the privatisation of water and not about the metering of water under the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988, which we debated last year.
I refer this matter to you, Mr. Speaker, because, while I realise that among your many duties you cannot be responsible for the actions of the BBC, that body unfortunately broadcast the incident to my constituents on Radio Solent. Every indication was given that I was not present in the House yesterday, which I was. Furthermore, as you know, Mr. Speaker, you kindly granted me an Adjournment debate in which I discussed the whole question of water metering and in which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister gave a number of undertakings for me to take back to my constituents. In the water metering trial on the Isle of Wight, no one has yet received a bill. There has been no dispute about the concept of metering, my constituents' concern is about the tariff.

Mr. Speaker: I have seen the report of the intervention yesterday by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr.

Mullin). The hon. Gentleman said nothing that was out of order, but I remind hon. Members that if they propose to refer to each other in a critical fashion, they should give notice of that intention to allow a rebuttal to be made at the time.

Mr. Chris Mullin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Gentleman, but we cannot debate the matter further now.

Mr. Mullin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a perfectly simple explanation. I was referring to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), who had intervened earlier in the debate. I apologise to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). It was a simple slip of the tongue. However, the constituents of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight would be glad to hear from him in the course of our discussions on the Water Bill, because they are suffering bills of two, three or four times the normal amount.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue that matter now.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that tomorrow the railway service of this country will be disrupted by a strike, which will also include Underground services. It will cause great difficulty for our staff in the House of Commons and especially catering and other associated staff. Have you received any representations from the local branch of the Transport and General Workers Union, which represents most of the staff here, and in particular have you received any representation from its most prominent member, the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: Members of unions do not normally make representations to me.

Representation on National Parks

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer the right of greater local representation on national park planning committees.
The role of national parks has been debated in the House many times. The Bill that created the role of the national parks was introduced in the House 40 years ago and was given its Second Reading on 31 March 1949. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Bill defined a national park as:
an extensive area of outstanding beauty, suitable for open air recreation by the general public, but where the normal life of the existing community goes on.
Such an area may run to hundreds of square miles. The largest of the proposed national parks, the Lake District national park, is more than 800 square miles.
There are 10 national parks in England and Wales and none in Scotland. The 10 are the Peak district, the Lake district, Snowdonia, Dartmoor, the Pembrokeshire coast, the North Yorkshire, the Yorkshire dales, Exmoor, Northumberland and the Brecon Beacons, which represent an overall area of 5,251 sq. miles and a population, in 1981, of approximately 238,000.
When the Minister of Town and Country Planning, Mr. Silkin introduced the Bill he said, when dealing with representation on the national parks:
The Bill provides that at least a quarter of the board or of the committee shall be appointed by the local planning authority on the nomination of the Minister, after consultation with the National Parks Commission. This will enable the Minister to ensure that persons are appointed to the parks committee without local interest or prejudices, who are able to put before the committee the so-called 'national' point of view".
Mr. Silkin went on to say:
There are considerable safeguards in the Bill as well. There is the presence of not less than 25 per cent. of members on the park committees who will put forward national considerations."—[Official Report, 31 March 1949; Vol. 463, c. 1471—83.]
My argument is that there is insufficient local representation on those national parks. The Opposition spokesman at that time was Mr. W. S. Morrison, who was the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. I am glad to see his successor, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, on the Front Bench today. He has a similar role to that of his predecessor.
Not all of the Dower report, which was the forerunner to the national parks, was accepted by the Government, although the setting up of the national parks had a broad welcome from Members of all parties. There was no Division on Second Reading. When the Dower report and the later Hobhouse report were commissioned, they came out not with the idea of a national parks committee, but with the idea of appointing a small, select group of people to administer the whole role of the national parks. However, neither the Government nor the Opposition of the time thought that acceptable. It was felt that a wider range of people should serve on the national parks.
It is difficult to bring forward specific guidelines for the national parks as a whole in this country because, although there are 10, they are not administered in the same manner. The Peak park board, which covers part of my constituency, is a joint board to which seven county or

metropolitan councils appoint. The Lake district has a separate board and is distinct from Cumbria county council. Dartmoor, Northumberland, the Pembrokeshire coast and Snowdonia have single county committees, which is a slightly different way of administering those national parks. The Brecon Beacons, Exmoor, North Yorkshire and the Yorkshire Dales national parks have multi-county committees. Therefore, it is difficult to bring forward a set of proposals that could be applied to all our national parks.
However, I hope that what I am proposing will go some way to achieving balance in the administration of our national parks. I know that that view is shared by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), who agrees that we should have more local representation from the local county councils and district councils. I argue strongly that it is the job and within the power of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to appoint people with national expertise in this area and that the local element should come from the councils.
It is the purpose of my Bill to ensure that two thirds of the appointments made by local authorities should have a residential qualification—gained by living in the area of the national park—or should be an elected member of a local authority serving the area of the national park. If a county council seat or division is part of a national park, those serving in that capacity should serve on the national park authority. That would mean that, of the total of 168 local authority appointees, 112 would fall in those categories. That is by no means a majority, because I recognise that the idea behind the "national park" is to give national significance to those parks.
There are 258 appointees in all—168 coming from the local authorities, as I have said, and 84 who are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Therefore, while the Bill would not mean a predominance of local people, it would enable a national point of view to be expressed.
The local element in this is important because there is no other planning authority in the country where one can serve on a planning committee without meeting the requirements of the Local Government Act 1972, which states that a member of a planning board should be a local government elector for the area of the authority; or have occupied as owner or tenant, land or premises in the area for the whole of the preceding 12 months; or have worked in the area during the preceding 12 months, or have lived in the area during the whole of the preceding 12 months.
The Bill is meant as a way forward and as a way of bringing about some elected responsibility in the national parks administration without having to have full elections. I have doubts about full elections to the national parks committees, because it is not right to have an elected body to consider just one issue. I hope that, by striking the two thirds balance and by not saying that all county council nominees should come from the national parks, I have gone some way towards meeting some of the concerns about the establishment of the board.
I hope that I shall have the honour of bringing in my Bill, and I am glad that it will have cross-party support. The Bill aims to ensure locally elected representation on the national parks committees. It does not necessarily mean that locally elected representatives would be given a majority; it simply seeks to ensure that the 238,000 people who live in the national parks have access to elected


representatives, because planning law for most of the rest of the country is dealt with through local representation. They, too, will have the accountability to the people who elect them to those bodies, thus bringing a more representative form of accountability to the national parks.
I know that the chances of the Bill reaching the statute book are somewhat remote at this stage in the parliamentary year. However, I hope that this important issue will eventually be considered by the Select Committee on the Environment. It is an important issue. Everyone wants to see the national parks continue and thrive in their present form. I am concerned to see some form of local accountability, as I believe that is vital.

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member seeking to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin). He obviously made some serious points about extending the provision to local representation, but he said that the Bill was intended to arrange for two thirds of the appointees to a planning board to be resident in the area or to be elected representatives serving in that particular area.
I believe that the hon. Member presented the Bill because of his experiences with the Peak park joint planning board, in which he has a considerable interest because of his constituency connections. The problem is that it is over the top to suggest two thirds of the appointees for the Peak park joint planning board. That provision is merely part of the hon. Gentleman's general vendetta against Derbyshire county council.
The situation in Derbyshire is that the Peak park joint planning board has 34 members. Eleven are appointed by the Secretary of State, and I accept that those can be people who have national considerations to bring to bear, as well as important local ones, and 23 members are appointed from various councils, including eight from Derbyshire county council. The problem is that many of those, although not from within the specific area, have a considerable interest in the provisions of the Peak park joint planning board and are willing to devote resources and to assist in the building up of the provisions, which are important not just for the area itself but for the whole of

Derbyshire and many wider areas, because those areas are represented by members of the board. There may be a need for some rationalisation of membership and there is obviously a case for greater democratisation so that the area is reasonably represented.
However, the proposals of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West would lead to a situation where those members with outside but legitimate interests in the Peak park joint planning board would be eliminated. On those grounds, I oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The question is, That the hon. Member have leave to bring in his Bill. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye".

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Speaker: To the contrary, "No."

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-West (Mr. Barnes) must sustain his opposition by saying "No".

Mr. Barnes: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it.

Question agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mr. Michael Jopling, Sir Michael Shaw, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Cecil Franks, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. David Davis, Mr. William Hague and Mr. David Curry.

REPRESENTATION ON NATIONAL PARKS

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin accordingly presented a Bill to confer the right of greater local representation on national park planning committees: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 176.]

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a convention of this place that if one speaks against a Ten-minute Bill, one is normally expected to vote against it? Do I take it that we are now allowed to speak against it, but are not required to vote against it?

Mr. Speaker: The rule is plain. If an hon. Member objects to a Ten-minute Bill he must carry his objection to the extent of shouting, "No." it is not necessary to divide if the Ayes have it, and that is what happened today.

Orders of the Day — Water Bill

2ND ALLOTTED DAY

Lords amendments further considered.

Clause 146

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE AUTHORITY

Lords amendment: No. 155, in page 146, line 10, at end insert—
() Every such report shall set out any directions under section 142 above which have been given to the Authority during the year to which the report relates.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move, amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 4, at end, add
'with particular reference to any directions concerning the condition of each classification of controlled waters, including the quality of water.'

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 156.

Mr. Roberts: This is the last parliamentary debate on the Government's water suicide Bill. Even before its implementation and the creation of 10 private monopolies, the Bill is unpopular.
The Government's proposals for water privatisation are unpopular before compulsory metering or a flat rate water poll tax have been introduced. They are unpopular even before the spectacle of a flotation fiasco doomed to partial or total failure despite the hidden write-off of £5·5 billion debt. They are unpopular even before the massive water price increases and the health-threatening increase in disconnections, which will be an inevitable consequence of a doctrinaire obsession with privatisation for its own sake.
The final arrogance of the Government and the Secretary of State for the Environment was revealed in the Lobby last night when they voted to destroy any pretence they had to being concerned about cleaning up our water environment. Never mind the polls that have revealed the general public's and the informed public's opinion of water privatisation and their opposition to it. Never mind the by-election and Euro-election results. The Government have dealt with the green vote—an expression of concern about the environment—by ridiculing the Green party and its policies. The Government are making a great mistake by pushing the Bill through and by disregarding public opinion and our water environment.
The creation of 10 private water monopolies will never be acceptable to the British people. Last night, the Government rejected implementing European Community standards of drinking water by 1993. Proper public consultation on land disposal was also rejected by the Government. In Committee and elsewhere they have rejected proposals for land to pass to the National Rivers Authority. They have also rejected our proposals for guarantees of access to the land owned by the water authorities.
The Government have agreed to the disposal of land, especially that of natural beauty and in sensitive areas. They have put a moratorium on sewage discharge prose—cutions and they have rejected proposals for the adequate sampling and controlling of river quality. They have rejected our opposition to sub-contracting and the contracting out of NRA functions. The gamekeeper-poacher relationship will therefore remain. They have also rejected our proposals for information on pollution and the integrated water cycle to be made available. They have also rejected amendments that we have tabled for access to other information.
It is outrageous for the Government to pretend that the Bill is an environmental step forward. They do so in total disregard of the facts. To justify that claim, they hold up the creation of the NRA. Today let us test how sincere the Government are in wanting the NRA to be able to do an effective and worthwhile job and in wanting to give it the staff, resources and powers necessary to do so. Once again, the Bill, the Government—and, I am afraid, the National Rivers Authority—will be found wanting. If the Government are serious about the NRA, they will accept amendment (a), which would strengthen its reporting duties.
Lords amendment No. 155 requires the NRA's annual report, which is an obligation under clause 146, to contain details of directions given to the NRA by the Secretary of State under clause 142. The position needs clarifying because of the somewhat clouded statement in the Bill that the Secretary of State will make directions. The amendments highlight the need for an open and accountable NRA with sufficient resources to carry out its work and a clear statutory framework in which to ensure the reduction of pollution and the improvement of the environment. The Government gave only limited ground on the accountability of the NRA during discussions on the Bill in another place. They gave more ground, we admit, on the NRA's advisory committees, but they do not have any power. What will the environmental programme consist of during the next five to 10 years? How will it prevent a go-slow in the improvement of sewage treatment works and other pollutants?
The Government have given no ground on securing a broad representation of interests to serve on the NRA, or on making its proceedings publicly accountable. It is clear that the NRA advisory committee, headed by Lord Crickhowell, is not entirely happy with the Government's proposals for the NRA, especially on staffing and on the amendment, slipped into the Bill during its last stage in another place, relating to a moratorium on prosecutions for pollution from sewage. Indeed, Lord Crickhowell has made it clear that the proposed staffing and resources will be inadequate for the NRA's functions.
It was interesting to note two advertisements in the same edition of the New Scientist on 24 June 1989. The first said:
Influence the Environment; Enjoy the Rewards. Tales of the River Bank. National Rivers Authority. Pollution Officers £9,500 rising to £13,000.
On the next page another advertisement stated:
Scientists/Engineers. Senior Investigations Scientist/ Engineer. Thames Water. £16,000 to £18,000, plus car allowance.
Someone can earn £9,500 rising to £13,000 as a controller of pollution, but £16,000 to £18,000 as an avoider of the controllers of pollution. The NRA is allowed only to offer


that salary scale, so it will not recruit staff of the quality and scientific experience needed. The water companies are offering a great deal more money and many more perks.
Why was the NRA established? The Government wanted a successful flotation and they needed to take away as many of the non-profit-making functions of the water authorities as possible, despite destroying the concept of river management. They are giving those functions, through an act of nationalisation—which it is—to the National Rivers Authority. Water resource planning and licensing of abstraction, monitoring of licences, environmental quality and pollution control, land drainage and flood protection, the maintenance, improvement and development of fisheries in inland waters, conservation and recreation and the navigation responsibilities of three water authorities are all to be given to the NRA so that, on privatisation, people will not be deterred from buying into the water companies.
Having given all those environmental functions to the NRA, with its inadequate resources and staffing, there remains a list of environmental problems for which anyone buying into the privatised water companies will be responsible, and that will be the Government's downfall. Such people will be buying responsibility for the breakdown of the sewage storm overflows, recently reported in the press, which is polluting our rivers and water courses, and for the 20 per cent. of sewage works which have failed consent levels.
Those people will be buying responsibility for the 300 beaches that the Government have designated as bathing beaches. The royal commission on environmental pollution identified 600 beaches in Britain as bathing beaches, but 33 per cent. of the 300 beaches, let alone the 600, breached EEC standards. They are buying responsibility for declining river quality. In the 1980s, river quality has declined alarmingly, and after 10 years of a Tory Government, it has worsened. The 1985 river quality survey showed a net deterioration of 803 km, or 2·5 per cent. of total river length in England and Wales. That decline has continued with the net deterioriation of 514 km in 1985. The people buying the private water companies will be buying responsibility for cleaning up our rivers.
4 pm
The Government herald the Mersey clean-up as the great feather in their environmentalist cap. During questions on the environment, Conservative Back Benchers plant questions about how much the Rhine pollutes the North sea, because it pollutes it more than the Thames does. But such questions ignore the fact that the River Mersey pollutes the Irish sea, one of the most polluted seas in the world, with sewage sludge dumping and the rest, for which the Government are directly responsible.

Mr. Robert Adley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is not a planted intervention, and that I am simply trying to follow what he says. If, over the past 10 years under the existing structure, the Government have failed in their responsibility to ensure the environmental purity and supply of water in the way that he has described, may there not be a case for changing the system?

Mr. Roberts: I suggest a change in the Government. We have had 10 years of Tory Government and 10 years of neglect and pollution, and now their answer to the problem is doctrinaire privatisation, to which the majority of the British public are opposed. It would be good to have a change in Government, in attitude and in the financial regime under which public sector water authorities function, leading to their democratisation.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman is not helping his own case. During the early stages of the Bill, I voted against the Government on the powers of the NRA. Cannot the hon. Gentleman comprehend that his doctrinaire comments do not add to an intelligent discussion of some of the important points at issue?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman started this by his provocative intervention, which needed a provocative answer. We require a Government who are not committed to privatising our water industry for doctrinaire reasons, but who are committed to the public expenditure and borrowing necessary to put our water environment in order. That is a reasonable point to make in a political chamber of this nature.
I was describing the responsibilities that the people to whom the Government are trying to sell the water industry will be buying, and I was talking about the so-called Mersey clean-up.
A new definition of river quality is needed, for we must be able not only to measure dissolved oxygen as an indicator of sewage pollution, but to use other techniques agreed throughout Europe and in this country to measure chemical pollution. That would alter the whole picture in terms of what is considered to be a clean or dirty river.
The proposal to take raw sewage from the Mersey and pipe it to Sanden dock in my constituency, and there turn it into sewage sludge after only primary treatment, before dumping it back whence it came, in the Irish sea, in the form of polluted, poisonous sludge, leaves much to be desired—especially in the light of claims that the Mersey will be cleaned up, when in fact it is full of heavy metals, printed circuit boards and many other pollutants.
Sewage sludge dumping is a major environmental problem and one that the North sea convention, to which the Secretary of State for the Environment is a signatory, intends to end, yet the people buying into privatised water will be buying the dumping of sewage sludge in the North sea. If the Government force the implementation of the North sea convention, as they should, shareholders will also be buying the responsibility for finding alternative ways of disposing of sewage sludge, other than by dumping it in the Irish sea and the North sea.
Responsibility for doing something about the water industry's aging infrastructure will also be purchased by those buying into water authorities. There is massive underground dereliction. Of the 150,000 miles of sewers, 10 per cent. are more than 100 years old. In 1986, there were 3,500 collapses and 15,000 blockages requiring excavation. In addition, 20 to 30 per cent. of the water leaving reservoirs is, to use the industry's euphemism, unaccounted for. In other words, it leaks out of an aging system. All those problems will be the responsibility of the private sector.
The Government try to convince the House and the public that the private sector—and the free market, with its profit motive—will deal with all the problems that exist,


and that the National Rivers Authority will ensure that they will be dealt with. If the Government are serious about caring for our water environment they will leave the NRA to determine its own pay and staffing levels, which it is not free to do under the current proposals. We should explore the N RA's scope to undertake capital works and the right to borrow both in providing flood defences and making environmental improvements—a power which the Government constantly rejected in Committee.
The Government argue fallaciously that the Bill is an environmental measure because it will release the water industry from the controls of the public sector borrowing requirement, and that the private sector will be able to borrow all the money that it needs to deal with the problems I have outlined. That is nonsense. How can there be any return on money borrowed in the private sector to undertake environmental improvements on which there will be no profit?
The truth is that, as the Government admitted, privatisation will cost the consumer. Nothing will come from the Exchequer, and there will be no cushion for the poor, who will face massive increases in water charges. The Government could at a stroke release water authorities from PSBR restrictions that have been imposed for many years, to allow them to borrow the same money from the same source as under privatisation, to be spent on the same environmental projects. It is economic nonsense to say that it is wrong for the public sector to do that, but right for the private sector.
It may be argued that no public sector operation would be allowed by any Treasury to breach the public sector borrowing requirement. Why, then, does BNFL suffer from no such restrictions? It is set up in such a way that it does not have to suffer from them, despite being in the public sector; so the Government must not tell us that the same cannot apply to the water industry.
On Second Reading in the other place Lord Crickhowell, whom the Government have just appointed so-called independent chairman of the National Rivers Authority and who used to be a Tory Cabinet Minister, said that he hoped that the Government would, in the financial arrangements made with the National Rivers Authority outside the terms of the Bill, allow the maximum freedom in management terms. There is no likelihood of that happening.
Various Government statements about the likely contents of the financial memorandum between the Government and the NRA fell somewhat short of the advisory committee's demands, although one concession was made: the control by the Secretary of State and the Treasury over staffing numbers was removed, although detailed control remains over the terms and conditions of staff, once appointed. That is ludicrous. Overall control of the budget has clearly been ceded to the NRA, leaving central Government with a right of veto over comparatively detailed matters only. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 190 would have given the NRA some opportunity to take the initiative in setting out a likely management structure for its staff, once appointed, with the overall package rather than the individual elements then being effectively subject to the decision of the Secretary of State and the Treasury.
In regard to borrowing, it quickly became clear in the other place that the Government's real view of the NRA was very different from that which it is trying to portray in public debates. The NRA will have, in the Government's

view, only a very limited need for capital resources: that is what they said. Such capital spending as it undertakes will generally be financed from its income through fees and charges. The water undertakers, private landowners and industrial concerns, rather than the NRA, will carry the main responsibility for reducing pollution and cleaning up the country's waterways. Some hope. The myth of the release from the public sector borrowing requirement is clearly illustrated here: all the essential environmental functions of the NRA remain in the public sector, and have not been released from PSBR control.
The NRA will be placed essentially in a monitoring and sampling role, providing evidence of breaches of discharge consents for the purposes of prosecutions. It will not have much joy under the present Government, because they will not allow the prosecutions. It will also issue licences relating to levels of consents. Breaches of those will be allowed in any event. Apart from flood defence, in which respect the NRA will inherit a substantial responsibility to be exercised with the input of the regional flood defence committees—with the majority of local authority members—the direct impact of the N RA's capital works for environmental improvement will be very small.
Several questions remain to be answered by the Government. To what degree can the NRA be considered an environmental agency, when it can do so little itself? The Government say that the existing position, whereby the water authorities police themselves for pollution, is wrong, and then go on to say that the Bill will separate the poacher from the gamekeeper. They neglect to emphasise that the NRA can—the Government admit that it will, and that they will encourage it to do so—contract back many of its functions, including regulatory functions, to the private water companies. Thus gamekeeper and poacher will again be one and the same—this time in the private sector, where profit is the motive rather than the environment and the provision of service to the consumer.
How will the Government guarantee, contrary to all the evidence of recent years, that the private sector will clean up its act? The private sector, the profit motive, has created pollution. It has never willingly cleaned it up, not without Government intervention and strong regulation. The National Rivers Authority will not have the staff, resources or powers to perform that task.
4.15 pm
Writing in The Guardian last week, Michael Carney of the Water Authorities Association said, in effect, that money spent on improving the quality of drinking water diverted money away from the improvement of the environment. What does the Secretary of State consider the environmental programme to consist of over the next five to 10 years? How can it help the environment to go slow on improving sewage treatment works and other pollutants which affect the quality of drinking water as well as river water?
It is interesting to note the way in which the Water Authorities Association comes to the aid of the Government. That organisation is quoted in support of privatisation and in support of the Government's decision not to accept the Lords amendments. We have statements signed by the chair of the association. Such statements are issued as though they were independent and non-political.
We are talking of 10 water authorities, the 10 chairs of which are appointed by a Tory Secretary of State for the Environment. Indeed, some of them are card-carrying


members of the Conservative party and all of them are likely to receive a fourfold increase in salaries when their authorities are privatised. It is hardly surprising that this so-called independent source is in favour of the Government's proposals. It represents about the only set of people—apart from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—who are in favour of them.
What claim can the National Rivers Authority have to be a vigorous environmental agency, when its meetings are closed to the public and its members consist of appointees of the Secretary of State, of the same ilk as the 10 chairs of the existing water authorities?
We have just witnessed the appointment of Julian Taylor and Wyndham Rogers Coltman to the National Rivers Authority. I accept that Mr. Taylor is famous—famous as the former chairman of the Manchester Ship Canal Company which, it may be recalled, began to initiate the import of waste from America, to be dumped on Manchester Ship Canal Company land and disposed of as a profit-making venture. The ship canal company is not famous for its record in cleaning up pollution. It is famous for contributing significantly to the pollution of the Mersey and the Irish sea. Those are the sort of political appointments that the Government have been making to the National Rivers Authority.
There was considerable disquiet in the National Rivers Authority about the implications of the transitional measure introduced by the Government on Report in the other place, whereby samples of river water taken by the transfer date were inapplicable to prosecutions mounted after that date. The Government thereby announced, in effect, a one-year moratorium for water undertakers and their sewage treatment works, since non-compliance over a year in 95 per cent. of cases must be demonstrated in relation to each parameter before a case can be founded. It has been obvious to public observers that the Government have cut the ground from under the feet of the National Rivers Authority at the beginning of its activities.
It will be recalled that Opposition Members argued at the outset of the Committee stage, and again in the other place, that the authority should be established for a year to enable it to commence its work, before the handover to the private sector took place. The Government attacked that proposal, describing it as a delaying measure. The wisdom of our proposal is now clear to see.
If the Government will not concede that dirty water remains dirty irrespective of the transfer date, they should at least concede that giving the National Rivers Authority a year in which to establish itself—before facing it with privatised organisations which have the prime motivation of circumventing its findings and making a profit—would be the better course.
The truth is that the Government do not want to allow the National Rivers Authority to establish itself as a real policing and monitoring power in the land, for that would be another deterrent to those whom the Government hope might wish to buy into the privatised water industry.
We need a body similar to the National Rivers Authority that is provided with the resources, staff and powers to deal not just with the water environment but with the environment generally—air, land and water. They are all related. A strong environmental protection agency

must be established in this country. That is Labour party policy. That agency will be established by the next Labour Government and the National Rivers Authority will be part of it.
Strong regional environmental protection agencies are also needed to look after the water environment as well as the environment generally, and strong staffing at regional level must be provided. Social ownership of the water industry is needed, controlled and run by elected tiers of regional government. Employees and consumers must play a part in its management. That smacks of democracy and causes the Secretary of State for the Environment to groan.
The British public do not want privatised water companies. They are not expected to be successful. The British public fear the worst. All the evidence is that their fears are well founded. The National Rivers Authority will be inadequate, because it is to be provided with inadequate powers, inadequate resources and insufficient staff. The success of the privatisation of the water industry depends upon there being an inadequate National Rivers Authority. Nobody in his right mind would buy shares in a privatised water industry if he knew that he would have to take on responsibility for cleaning up our water. All he wants to do is make a profit out of his investment.

Mr. Robert Adley: One might have supposed that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, would be seeking support from other quarters of the House, apart from his own party, but he has made a pretty poor fist of it.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman should take a leson from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who recognises from time to time that if he wants to draw support from beyond the ranks of his own party there are ways of going about it.

Mr. Roberts: rose—

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman wants to intervene before I have even started.

Mr. Roberts: I rise just to make the point that so far support for our policies by Conservative Members has not changed the Bill one little bit.

Mr. Adley: With respect, this is a parliamentary democracy. If it were the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party to change the electoral system, that might be an opportunity for a different debate on a different day—[Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) waving his arms around. I propose to make a short speech, but the hon. Member for Bootle and his hon. Friends are doing their utmost to prevent some of us from trying to support these amendments.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, during this brief debate, he can reassure me that I should go into the Lobby with him later this evening. Having been a Member of Parliament for a few years and having seen the state into which the Labour party managed to drag our economy, I have very little confidence that all the grandiose plans that the hon. Member for Bootle described a few moments ago will ever come to fruition. The three initials that live in the


memory from the years of Labour Government are not NRA but IMF. Before contemplating the future of the water industry or any other industry, we should contemplate the way in which any Government can influence the economic progress of the country.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend recognises that there is a conflict between the environmental disciplines placed in the hands of the National Rivers Authority and the effect that those disciplines may have on the sale price of the water companies. I hope that he can convince me that the Government have got the balance right. I certainly look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend has to say.
I was happy to vote for the Bill on Second Reading because I believe that the National Rivers Authority represents an important step forward, as I said in my first intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Bootle. The separation of functions is important. It is only a pity that the hon. Gentleman was so churlish as not to be prepared to recognise the advantages that that proposal could mean for water supply and environmental pollution improvements in Britain.
I do not go along with the proposition that privatisation is a panacea for all the industry's ills or that it is a diabolical plot to poison our constituents. However, the number of public telephone boxes now in operation that were formerly out of action and vandalised when British Telecom was in the public sector does not lead me to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Bootle —that there is a dichotomy between private sector operation and good public service. There are plenty of examples in the privatisations of the past few years to show that good private sector management can provide as good, if not better, service to the consumer at just as acceptable a cost as it was provided in the public sector.
Finally, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can convince me that the Government have got the right balance between sales price and environmental discipline.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The debate about the ability of the NRA to publish more facts than is provided for in the Bill is essential. The problem is that when the NRA was mooted and debated thoroughly in Committee, it was widely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides as an essential body for environmental protection in the water industry. It was felt that the NRA would be effective. When we examined the record of our rivers and water policy of the past 15 years, we all welcomed the introduction of the NRA. During the passage of the Bill through the House, the NRA appears to have become less effective. We know that it will not be adequately funded to carry out its duties in the way that we would wish. That is regrettable as apparently the NRA will not be able to publish sufficient information by which we can judge its effectiveness.
We should support the amendment which would enable the NRA to report on water quality and the status of our rivers and to run from one year to the next in saying what progress it is making in cleaning up the water environment. But it looks as though that will not happen. If the amendment is not accepted, the Secretary of State will have a free hand, and the NRA will be able to publish the minimum amount of information by which to judge its

effectiveness. I hope that the Secretary of State will correct me if that is not the case, but it appears that that will happen under the Bill.
The amendment highlights the need for an open and accountable National Rivers Authority and will ensure that sufficient resources are available to enable it to function properly. The problem is that the Treasury will have to fund the NRA in part. As has already been mentioned, given the salaries of staff in the NRA, it will be unable adequately to compete with the powerful water plcs. It is wrong that the water plcs should have everything loaded in their favour while the environmental protection agency—the NRA—will be unable to protect the environment adequately. Any pretensions that the Government have to protecting the environment are being thrown away by diluting the effectiveness of the NRA. The fact that Lord Crickhowell is unhappy about the NRA does not augur well for the future.
The Government would be wise to listen to the arguments that the NRA should be more effective and better financed and have the high-quality staff that are necessary to monitor water effectively. The danger is that, in the first years of operation, the water plcs will have all the resources necessary to test water quality yet the NRA will be scraping around looking for laboratory facilities to do that testing.
4.30pm
There was considerable debate on these matters in the other place. There is a case for freeing the NRA in terms of pay and staff structure. There is a case, too, for giving it more freedom to undertake capital works and extending its right to borrow for flood protection schemes and so on. That information should be published annually, as the Lords amendment requires. The NRA should have maximum freedom to manage.
The Government's view is very different. They wish to limit the NRA's capital resources. They cannot say that they are producing an effective gamekeeper and then proceed to neuter its effectiveness. I fear for the future unless the NRA can publish the requisite information by which the public can judge its effectiveness and unless the Government are prepared to provide it with the staff and facilities to ensure that it is a proper environmental agency. I hope that the Secretary of State can reassure me, but I fear that he faces an uphill task.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, I am one of those Conservative Members who, since Second Reading, have consistently opposed the Bill as being unwanted and unnecessary. I associate myself, however, with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). If the Opposition were seeking to maintain cross-party support in these debates, I regret to say that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) did their cause no good.

Mr. Allan Roberts: There has been cross-party support. There have been a few "rebels", as the Conservative party likes to portray them in the press. Conservative Members have made no significant attempt to alter or defeat any part of the Bill.

Mr. Winterton: That is hardly an appropriate intervention. I should have thought that voting in this place showed an intention to defeat a particular measure,


and perhaps that is the only truly democratic way of going about it. If the hon. Member for Bootle looks at the political position of those who oppose the measure, he will see that there was support across the spectrum of the broad church of the Tory party. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is traditionally put on the Left of the Tory party whereas I am traditionally put on its Right. There are others in between. There was a broad church of people—[Interruption] Indeed, it did not, but that has not prevented us from showing our feelings vocally and participating, when appropriate, in debates.
Because the NRA is perhaps the only true safeguard in the Bill for the consumer, the amendments are relevant. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can make some concessions. If the National Rivers Authority has inadequate funds and powers to do its job, the Bill will be a fraud. There will be no protection for the consumer or the environment.
One reason why I have consistently opposed the Bill in recent times is that I do not believe that a private monopoly is more efficient or beneficial to the country than a public monopoly. A monopoly exists. Therefore, the National Rivers Authority is the one and only safeguard. If it cannot match the remuneration that will be offered to the staff of the new private water undertakers and if it has inadequate resources for capital expenditure, it cannot fulfil the role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends for it in the provision of water and sewerage facilities.
If matters are to improve after the Bill, will the National Rivers Authority be able to assist my constituents in the Wildboarclough valley, who were recently devastated by a flash flood? I am ready to be persuaded to the contrary by my right hon. Friend, but the North West water authority is not prepared to take any responsibility for what happened. It will undertake no remedial works—not even restore the Clough brook, which flows into the Dane, to its original course. It will be the responsibility of the county council, as the highway authority, and local farmers and riparian owners.
Will the Bill improve matters? Will the National Rivers Authority be prepared to spend some money on flood protection in the Wildboarclough valley and the surrounding areas and try to ensure that another flood such as the one that affected my constituency on 24 May will not occur again and that the devastation will be reduced?
It is extraordinary how the river authorities and, I suppose, the new private undertakings will ensure that people who extract water in any place throughout the United Kingdom will have to pay a fee. They currently pay a fee to the North West water authority and other water authorities. The North West water authority currently takes no responsibility for, and is not even prepared to assist in repairing, the dreadful damage that occurred.

Mr. Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend is clearly approaching his peroration. He said that the only protection for the consumer will be through the National Rivers Authority, though that ignores the role of the Director General of Water Services. First, will he explain how, but for privatisation, the NRA would ever have been set up by any Government?

Secondly, what protection is given to the consumer under present arrangements by which water authorities set standards and also police themselves?

Mr. Winterton: Those matters have been covered extremely adequately. The tragedy is that they could have been dealt with without privatising the water undertakings.

Mr. David Alton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's case, which he is making most persuasively. To aid his argument, may I point out that the North West water authority has given deemed consent under the existing arrangements to 200 companies to pollute the River Mersey. Is that not an example of irresponsibility—the very point that the hon. Gentleman is making? There have been paltry fines of £600 or so on average in the past few years when massive pollution has been taking place. Will the position be made worse by the new regulations?

Mr. Winterton: I am tempted to go back over the many hours of debate that have taken place in the House and elsewhere, but that would be inappropriate because we are considering specific amendments that have been passed in another place. We should be directing our remarks to the role and responsibility of the National Rivers Authority and the resources that it will have available to fulfil its vital duties on behalf of the consumer.
Unless my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can meet some of the opinions and concerns expressed in this short debate and articulated clearly here and in another place, I shall have no alternative but to support the Opposition's amendments. Having said that, I point out to the hon. Member for Bootle that any Government would use all the powers of the establishment that they could muster in such circumstances. A Labour Government would do precisely the same: they would muster their votes to ensure that any opposition—even from their own supporters—was crushed and brushed out of the way. That does not stop hon. Members who sincerely believe what they are saying standing up and telling their Government, "I think that you should think again."
I am addressing my remarks to the amendments, but I should love to crush the Bill altogether. Even at this late stage I emphasise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it would be beneficial to the party and the country if the Bill were dropped. I have not met a single Tory who wants it. It is an electoral disaster and it will not achieve any of the objectives that the Government have set for it.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I shall pass over the speech of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts)—

Mr. Allan Roberts: Why? It had some questions in it.

Mr. Ridley: —until the end of my brief remarks.

Mr. Roberts: Does that mean that the Secretary of State will answer the questions?

Mr. Ridley: I shall answer my two hon. Friends, the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who even expressed a tiny bit of reservation about some aspects of the Bill, surprising though that is. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said that he has never met a Tory who was in


favour of the Bill; I should love to have a cup of tea with him. He asked about flood protection. I can tell him that that will become a responsibility of the National Rivers Authority, which will have the full powers and finance to deal with it. I hope that that reassures him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch sees a conflict in theory between the environmental duties of the water companies, as they will become, and the need of investors to invest viably and not at a loss. The Conservative party has always resolved that conflict through regulation—whether for health and safety matters, for fire precautions or to prevent child labour. That was so in the 19th century; it has been so for pollution control in recent years and it is so in this Bill, which vests the power to regulate in the NRA. The Bill also provides for account to be taken of the economic consequences of the standards that have to be met—first, in the setting of the K factor, which is the amount that the companies can charge their customers in the pricing formula, and secondly by allowing unforeseen investment arising from an unforeseen development, such as, for example, a higher European Community standard, to be met by the companies through the cost pass-through mechanism.
The Bill thus squares the dilemma in a way that it has not been squared under public ownership. As we have learnt from the Labour party—and as has been the experience of this Government—the only way of squaring it under public ownership was to bargain behind the closed doors of the Treasury for as much cash as one could get and then to adjust the standards to suit the cash. That is the wrong way round, and that point is crucial to the Bill.
I do not believe that the Lords amendment is a touchstone of the virility of the NRA, as the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) and for Bootle seem to think. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 155 would require directions under clause 102 on the classification of controlled waters to be set out in the NRA's annual report. There is no need for that, as the clause makes quite clear the respective responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the NRA. I shall have responsibility to publish a great deal of information and it is to be hoped that the NRA will add to the matters that it is already required to publish. It will be free to supplement that information as it wishes in its annual report. Only where the role of Ministers is less specifically defined is there a case for requiring the NRA's annual report to spell out the fact that the authority has received a ministerial direction. In respect of water quality objectives, the Bill makes Ministers' role absolutely explicit. The House will not therefore wish to accept the Opposition's amendment.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a problem of over-abstraction in chalk streams, rivers and waterways throughout the country? Many feel that the Lords amendment is missing a requirement on the NRA to report on abstraction licences and the control of water abstraction. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that should be dealt with? Can he give us assurances that that question will be considered in relation to the NRA's report?

Mr. Ridley: I am sure that that is an important matter, and I agree that it should be made public. I see no reason why the NRA would not want to make it public. If hon. Members wrote to the NRA, no doubt the body would give them a full explanation of the situation in their area. There is no secrecy involved; we are talking not about the freedom and flexibility that we give the NRA but about the duties we place upon it.
Hon. Members may know that we have included in the Bill a power for the NRA to borrow in cases of emergency—for example, when serious flooding or erosion of the sea wall requires extra special work in a short period and extra special cost beyond what it is reasonable to precept on the local authorities in one year. The NRA's finance will be from Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food grant and precepts on the local authority for flood protection and sea defence. To the extent that the NRA might be involved in capital works, the necessary powers already exist in the Bill. In the normal course of replacing flood defences and sea walls, however, the NRA will have a programme for which it can precept annually and will not, therefore, need to borrow. I do not believe that there is a problem.
The gross error of thinking revealed by the hon. Member for Bootle was that the NRA would become an environmental investor. After listening for 200 hours to our debates on the Bill, the hon. Gentleman made a classic mistake. He said that we were removing from the water companies the non-commercial operations so that the companies would become more profitable. We are not doing that at all. We are removing the regulatory function from the water companies, so that the NRA can discharge its responsibilities to the House and the public, and control standards. The investment in environmental improvements—in drinking water, treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, new pipes and so on—which are the major investments, will be undertaken by the companies. The NRA will set the standards that the companies must reach by a certain period, monitor their activities and enforce standards if the companies do not reach them of their own accord. Nowhere in that model system of regulation is there a need for the NRA to invest in works of environmental improvement—except in flood defences and sea protection. So the hon. Member for Bootle has it wrong.
The more that the Opposition and the hon. Member for Bootle continue to damn, inaccurately and misleadingly, the present water environment—I admit that there are blemishes, although nothing like to the extent that the hon. Gentleman says—the more they make the case for the Bill and the case for separating the functions of regulation and investment to achieve the required standards. The hon. Gentleman has never been able to get it right whether he is opposing the Bill because the water industry is in a fine state under public ownership, or whether he is speaking in favour of the Bill because the water environment is in a mess.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor asked whether the National Rivers Authority would have the necessary funding to carry out its operations. I have given the answer many times before, as is true of all the arguments on the Bill. The sources of the NRA's funding for flood defence are local authority precepts and grants from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is separate from any other of its activities and in no


sense will the Government influence what it decides it wants to do on precepts. It will have borrowing powers in relation to that.
The authority's water resources functions, which are the important river basin management functions, will be funded entirely from charges on abstractions including the new water plcs, and there will be a new charge in accordance with the principle, to which I think that the hon. Member for Bootle subscribes, that the polluter pays. The dischargers—the water plcs in relation to sewage and the industrialists in relation to industrial waste—will contribute towards the cost of pollution control through a charge for discharge consents.

Mr. Alton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ridley: No, because I have nearly finished.
The remaining quarter of NRA expenditure, which on present figures will be about £70 million, will be met by Exchequer grant. There is no question of starving the authority. The Government accept the argument of the House that it is necessary to fund the NRA properly so that it can discharge its important functions fully and properly.
If we are to fund it in that way, as we must, the House, especially through the Select Committee on Public Accounts, will rightly insist that we ensure that the £70 million is spent properly on the functions for which the NRA is designed. As is the case with all public servants, we must ensure that the funds are not used for profligate over-spending on the salaries and expenses of members of staff. There must be proper accountability to the House, just as there is for the staff of the House of Commons, for the staff of my own Department and for the staff of all nationalised industries. There must be proper accountability for public money.
I repeat that the worry the Opposition have tried to instill in the public—although they concede that the NRA is highly necessary and long overdue—that we are trying to muck the NRA for a ha'porth of tar is typical of the hon. Member for Bootle and his hon. Friends. So deep is their ignorance and antipathy that they can never bring themselves to admit for once that the Government have got it right. On this occasion, they have.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: If the Secretary of State believes for one moment that the Government have got it right on the functions of the NRA he shows, once again, how mistaken he is. The Opposition have repeatedly made it clear that we support the establishment of the NRA. However, we are most concerned that it should have the necessary funding and powers to carry out its duties satifactorily. I am sure that at least the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) agree with that point, as do those whose concerns they were expressing.
We believe that the regulatory function should be separate from investment. The Secretary of State said earlier that we did not agree with that principle, but he was wrong. We agree that the gamekeeper and poacher aspects should be separate and, therefore, that the regulatory and investment functions should be separate. But there is no reason why that cannot be done with the industry left in the public sector and with investment made by the public sector to deal with the problems facing the water industry.

The problems, whether river pollution, sewage treatment works, water quality or river quality, could and should be solved in the public sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) referred in an intervention to a problem that we are unable to discuss today—overabstraction. He will recognise that, because of the very nature of our debates yesterday and today, and the imposition of a guillotine, there are many important issues that we shall be unable to debate at all, including the most important aspect of the Bill—the regulatory authority—to which this House and the public look to ensure a proper quality of supplies and sewage treatment in future. We are unable to debate that sufficiently because the Government have seen fit to impose a guillotine and have provided insufficient time for that aspect of the Bill to be debated properly. The Secretary of State—

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pike: No, because I have only four minutes in which to speak.
The Secretary of State is well aware that, in its third report, the Select Committee on the Environment, when proposing that the gamekeeper and poacher functions should be separate, said:
It would give us cause for very real alarm if the present water pollution inspectorate (or a new unified and independent regulatory body)—
that is, the National Rivers Authority—
were not given adequate staffing, resources and the necessary powers to oversee the activities of a privatised water industry.
That is the position that we have now reached. We are establishing an independent body, the National Rivers Authority, but we are not giving it the powers, the functions or the ability to be seen openly to carry out its functions to the satisfaction of the public. I stress the word "public". It is not only the Government and the House but the public who have a right to be satisfied that these matters are being dealt with properly.
I received today a letter from the Prime Minister's office, which said:
An independent regulator is being given legislative teeth to impose high standards in the public interest.
Clearly, the Prime Minister herself does not know that the Government are removing the teeth from the National Rivers Authority and ensuring that it cannot carry out its functions.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield said that if the National Rivers Authority is unable to offer the salaries to attract the right staff, that will weaken its basis from the start. In addition, the concession that the authority cannot take action against the water companies as a result of what has happened in the interim period is an outrage and shows the direction in which the Government intend to go.
There is a danger that, once the industry is in the private sector, profit will become more important than dealing with pollution and ensuring that we have a satisfactory quality of supply. The Government are dedicated above all to profit and pay only lip-service to green issues. They have put a veneer on the Bill and pretend that it is a green Bill. They will allow relaxation after relaxation to ensure that the privatised industry can make the profits they want it to make to attract people to invest in it.
I have a letter from North West Water which says:


The input of these pollutional loads to the River Brun and hence to Rowley Lake is now considered unacceptable".
The discharge of treated sewage effluent from Worsthorne sewage treatment works does not comply with the conditions of consent. However, action cannot be taken against those polluters because of the power to exclude the present one-year moratorium. The letter continues:
There is also a storm sewage overflow upstream of the sewage works which does and is designed to release the flow of sewage arriving at the works in extreme weather conditions.
Those are the problems facing the industry. Hon. Member after hon. Member could itemise the different sewage works which do not meet the consent levels but which will be allowed to get away with it.
The Government are not really in favour of ensuring that the National Rivers Authority can carry out its functions. Although the principle may be right, the Government are not giving the N RA the teeth, the staffing or the resources to carry out its functions properly. However, they are not prepared to be seen to be doing that in the open. Once again, the Government will fail to ensure that our water quality is brought up to standard, even though the public are entitled to that. I hope that the amendment will be carried.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 302.

Division No. 276]
[5.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cryer, Bob


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cunningham, Dr John


Adley, Robert
Dalyell, Tam


Allen, Graham
Darling, Alistair


Alton, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Armstrong, Hilary
Dewar, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dixon, Don


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Douglas, Dick


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Battle, John
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Margaret
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beith, A. J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Flynn, Paul


Blair, Tony
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Blunkett, David
Foster, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith
Fraser, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Galloway, George


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Buckley, George J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Richard
Gordon, Mildred


Callaghan, Jim
Gould, Bryan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cartwright, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clay, Bob
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clelland, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heffer, Eric S.


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cousins, Jim
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Crowther, Stan
Hood, Jimmy





Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howells, Geraint
Pendry, Tom


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L.


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Radice, Giles


Ingram, Adam
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Richardson, Jo


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robertson, George


Kennedy, Charles
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfedder, James
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rowlands, Ted


Kirkwood, Archy
Ruddock, Joan


Leadbitter, Ted
Sedgemore, Brian


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Terry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livsey, Richard
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McAllion, John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McCartney, Ian
Snape, Peter


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Steel, Rt Hon David


McLeish, Henry
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Turner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Vaz, Keith


Maxton, John
Wall, Pat


Meacher, Michael
Wallace, James


Meale, Alan
Walley, Joan


Michael, Alun
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wareing, Robert N.


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wilson, Brian


Morgan, Rhodri
Winnick, David


Morley, Elliott
Winterton, Nicholas


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Worthington, Tony


Mowlam, Marjorie
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Martyn Jones.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Amess, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Ashby, David
Bowis, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baldry, Tony
Brazier, Julian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bright, Graham


Batiste, Spencer
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Bendall, Vivian
Browne, John (Winchester)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Benyon, W.
Buck, Sir Antony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Burns, Simon


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Burt, Alistair


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Butler, Chris


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)






Carrington, Matthew
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cash, William
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, Mr
Holt, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howard, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Irvine, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Irving, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jack, Michael


Curry, David
Jackson, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Janman, Tim


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knowles, Michael


Evennett, David
Knox, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fallon, Michael
Lang, Ian


Favell, Tony
Latham, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Ivan


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forman, Nigel
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forth, Eric
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lilley, Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Franks, Cecil
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Freeman, Roger
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


French, Douglas
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Gardiner, George
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gill, Christopher
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maclean, David


Goodlad, Alastair
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Madel, David


Gorst, John
Malins, Humfrey


Gow, Ian
Mans, Keith


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maples, John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marlow, Tony


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grist, Ian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Ground, Patrick
Mates, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hague, William
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Miller, Sir Hal


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miscampbell, Norman


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Monro, Sir Hector


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayes, Jerry
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moss, Malcolm


Heddle, John
Moynihan, Hon Colin





Mudd, David
Stevens, Lewis


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Neubert, Michael
Stokes, Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Richard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Paice, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Thome, Neil


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Tredinnick, David


Price, Sir David
Trippier, David


Raffan, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Redwood, John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Riddick, Graham
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Walden, George


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rost, Peter
Waller, Gary


Rowe, Andrew
Walters, Sir Dennis


Ryder, Richard
Ward, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watts, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Widdecombe, Ann


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Shersby, Michael
Wilshire, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Speller, Tony
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Squire, Robin



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Tony Durant and


Stern, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 155 agreed to.

It being after Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order [3 July], to put .forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendments Nos. 117 to 154, 156 to 237, 267 and 277 agreed to.—[Some with Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 18

POWERS WITH RESPECT TO THE LAYING AND MAINTENANCE OF PIPES ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 238, in page 267, line 13, leave out from "description;" to end of line 15 and insert—
(ii) the power conferred by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(bb) above; and
(iii) each of the powers conferred in relation to the powers mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(c) above,

The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 239 and the Government motion to disagree, together with Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu thereof, Lords amendment No. 240 and the Government motion to disagree with the amendment.

Mr. Howard: Schedule 18 sets out the powers under which the authority and water and sewerage undertakers are able to lay and repair pipes and carry out associated works. They are generally able to exercise their pipe-laying powers after serving reasonable notice on the owner and occupier of the land.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 239 and 240 is to require the authority and undertakers generally to seek the consent of the owner and occupier of the land before exercising the powers. The power to lay pipes after serving reasonable notice would be limited to cases of emergency, cases where the undertaker is complying with a requisition to provide a main or sewer and cases where the Secretary of State determines that it would be exceptionally difficult to obtain the consent of every owner and occupier concerned.
The overall effect of those amendments would be severely to inhibit the ability of undertakers to meet effectively the requirements placed on them to provide the water and sewerage services that are essential to public health.
While there may seem to be a superficial reasonableness about the amendments, in practice they would impose extremely cumbersome arrangements on the Secretary of State and undertakers, which would to a large extent defeat the whole object of the pipe-laying powers. Far from merely limiting those powers in a sensible way, the amendments would in fact undermine them.
It is self-evident that imposing a requirement to obtain the consent of every landowner and every occupier will cause delay. Whether it is a case involving many landowners and occupiers along the route or only a few, negotiations can be protracted as each person affected attempts to persuade the undertaker to go elsewhere, to delay entry or to give greater compensation or some other advantage over everyone else. Where negotiations break down, the amendments provide for the Secretary of State to determine whether consent is being unreasonably withheld. That would be a quasi-judicial process which is bound to take some months to determine, particularly if the person withholding the consent does not co-operate with the process or if local inquiries are involved.
The amendments provide for some exceptions. They provide for the Secretary of State to be able to determine whether it would be exceptionally difficult to obtain within a reasonable time the consent of every owner and occupier concerned. But that would be a very difficult jurisdiction for the Secretary of State to exercise. There would have to be strong evidence that an attempt to use the normal consent procedure would involve exceptional difficulty beyond the normal length of those protracted processes. The Secretary of State would need to consider representations from the parties involved, perhaps to take independent advice or even to hold a local inquiry. There

would then of course be the possibility of further delay by dissatisfied parties seeking to challenge the Secretary of State's decision by way of judicial review.
5.15 pm
The amendments are particularly unreasonable when considered in the context of our European Community obligations. On the one hand, Opposition Members urge us to comply with those obligations, in particular the drinking water directive, to an impracticable time scale, while on the other they support moves to remove from the Bill the very powers that water and sewerage undertakers will need to meet those commitments. If the operational capabilities of water and sewerage undertakers are constrained in the way proposed by the amendments, there is certain to be a considerable deterioration in the pace at which we can expect to see the improvements that we all want in the quality of our drinking water and standards of our bathing beaches.
I know that in retaining the existing powers of water authorities to lay pipes on notice, we would be preserving the unique position of the water industry as the only public utility with such powers. The water industry can, however, properly be regarded in a different context from other utilities. Satisfactory water supply and sewerage arrangements are essential to public health. The undertakers need those powers to be able to carry out the major improvement programmes necessary to meet the European Community requirements on public water supplies and to ensure the improvement in the cleanliness of our beaches—matters which we are constantly told should be taken forward more rapidly. The water industry does not generally have the operational advantages of other utilities. The route of water and sewer pipes is often determined by the need for gravitational flows, which is a restriction that does not apply elsewhere.
I appreciate that some landowners are dissatisfied with the levels of compensation paid in those cases. The Bill provides for full and fair compensation to be paid in cases where the value of the land is depreciated or loss or damage is caused as a result of the exercise of pipe-laying powers. The grounds on which compensation is paid following the exercise of those powers are being brought into line with the compensation provisions which apply to other utilities. Landowners affected by the exercise of those powers by the water industry will therefore be able to claim compensation on the same grounds as those affected by similar operations of other utilities. The Bill also provides for disputes over the amount of compensation to be referred to the Lands Tribunal.
I am well aware of the scope that those powers offer for arbitrary behaviour on the part of undertakers. I know that there have been occasions in the past when landowners have suffered from unreasonable actions. It is for those reasons that we have taken significant steps to protect the interests of landowners.
First, the Bill provides for the powers to be subject to a statutory code of practice to be submitted by the undertakers to the Secretary of State for approval. Unlike the voluntary codes which exist in some water authorities, the codes will be mandatory and the powers will be subject to the oversight of the director general. The Department has produced a model code, on which the statutory codes will be based, in consultation with the water industry and landowning interests. The code will cover all aspects of the pipe-laying process. In particular, it will contain


provisions requiring undertakers to provide information to owners and occupiers about the works, to plan the works to cause the minimum inconvenience to landowners and to restore the land, once the work is complete, to its original condition. Undertakers will be required to act in a reasonable way at all times. I believe the model code strikes the right balance between the need to ensure that landowning interests are protected and the reasonable needs of undertakers.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Does the model code cover interest on outstanding loans in compensation claims?

Mr. Howard: In the Bill we do not propose any change to the existing arrangements relating to interest. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have separately issued a consultation document that deals with the payment of interest on compensation in compulsory purchase cases. We shall be announcing the results of that compensation exercise in due course.
The second step we have taken is to provide in clause 156 for the director general to direct an undertaker to make a payment to the complainant, up to a maximum of £1,000—which we propose should be increased to £5,000 —if he is satisfied that an undertaker has failed to consult the owner and occupier before or during pipe-laying, or by acting unreasonably has caused them to suffer loss or damage or to be inconvenienced. This provision will help to ensure that undertakers act reasonably when exercising their powers.
Finally, my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside introduced in the other place a new requirement on undertakers. Lords amendment No. 161 requires undertakers to alter or remove a pipe in response to a reasonable request from a person with an interest in the land where the pipe is installed, or on adjacent land. There will be recourse to the director general in cases where a person considers that an undertaker has refused to comply with a reasonable request to move a pipe. An undertaker will be able to recover from the person the expenses it reasonably incurs in carrying out the works. That will go a long way to ensuring that the presence of undertakers' pipes on private land does not unreasonably hinder any subsequent development of that land.
I know that, in accepting amendments Nos. 238 and 240, the other place was greatly concerned about the powers that will be available to the water industry and the scope they offer for inconsiderate behaviour. The powers are, however, essential for operational, and more importantly public health, reasons. Knowing the strength of feeling on this issue, I have given very serious consideration to the views expressed in both Houses when the issue has been debated. With the leave of the House, I propose to move the amendments on the marshalled list in lieu of Lords amendment No. 239, which will improve still further the protection of the interest of landowners provided in the Bill, while at the same time preserving those essential powers.
The amendments provide that, when exercising their powers in order to lay new pipes, undertakers will be required to give a minimum of three months' notice. A minimum of 42 days notice would be required in the case

of replacement or repair of existing pipes. The only exceptions to those arrangements would be cases of emergency and the exercise of the powers in response to a requisition to provide a main or sewer or a request to provide a service pipe when the undertaker is required to comply within a statutory time limit. Those notice periods are intended to ensure that the examples of the exercise of the powers following an unreasonably short period of notice that have concerned Members of both Houses are not repeated.
The amendments also contain a further measure designed to ensure reasonable behaviour by undertakers. It provides for the maximum payment which the director general can direct an undertaker to make to a complainant under clause 156 to be increased from £1,000 to £5,000.
Finally, the amendments provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide for advance payment of compensation in respect of the exercise of the powers. I can give the House an undertaking that the regulations will be made in time to come into force on transfer date. They will follow the precedent of section 52 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and provide for advance payments of 90 per cent. of the agreed amount of compensation or 90 per cent. of the compensation as estimated by the undertaker. The advance payment will be made not later than three months after such a payment is requested.
The provisions contained in these amendments, together with those in the code of practice, will fully meet the concerns of the other place. The Bill will specify the periods of notice that an undertaker must give before entering land, and the undertaker will be required by the code of practice to provide information to the owner and occupier about the purpose of the works, including the nature, route and timing of works. Those requirements, combined with the provisions in clause 156 for the director general to direct an undertaker to make a payment, now up to £5,000, in cases where the undertaker has failed to consult a complainant or has acted unreasonably in exercising the powers will, I believe, deal extremely effectively with the legitimate concerns of landowners.
The provisions brought forward in these amendments have the agreement of the movers of Lords amendments Nos. 239 and 240 in the other place. I therefore urge hon. Members to disagree with the Lords in amendments 239 and 240. They would not only impose a severe constraint on the ability of undertakers to perform their statutory duties, including those to meet EC obligations, but in putting pressure on undertakers to agree, in effect, ransom payments to landowners would be to the detriment of consumers generally. The House should also disagree with amendment No. 238 since, as a consequence of the amendments we are now moving, it is unnecessary.
I recommend to the House amendments on the marshalled list in lieu of Lords amendment No. 239, which will improve the protection afforded to landowners while preserving the powers of undertakers to meet their statutory obligations. I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 238 disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 239 disagreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 156

COMPLAINTS WITH RESPECT TO THE EXERCISE OF WORKS POWERS ON PRIVATE LAND

Amendment made in lieu of Lords amendment No. 239:

(a), in page 156, line 26, leave out '£1,000' and insert `£5,000'.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 18

POWERS WITH RESPECT TO THE LAYING AND MAINTENANCE OF PIPES ETC

Amendment made in lieu of Lords amendment No. 239:

(b), in page 267, leave out lines 11 to 20 and insert
'only after reasonable notice of the proposed exercise of the power has been given to the owner and to the occupier of the land where the power is to be exercised.
(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (6) below, in relation to any exercise of the powers conferred by this paragraph for the purpose of laying or altering a relevant pipe, the minimum period that is capable of constituting reasonable notice for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above shall be deemed—

(a) where the power is exercised for the purpose of laying a relevant pipe otherwise than in substitution for an existing pipe of the same description, to be three months; and
(b) where the power is exercised for the purpose of altering an existing pipe, to be forty-two days.

(6) Sub-paragraph (5) above shall not apply in the case of any notice given within the period of one year beginning with the transfer date or in the case of any notice given with respect to the exercise of any power in an emergency or for the purpose of—

(a) laying or altering a service pipe; or
(b) complying with a duty imposed under section 40 or 70 of this Act.'.

Amendment made in lieu of Lords amendment No. 239:

(c), in page 268, line 38, at end insert—
`( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring the Authority or any water undertaker or sewerage undertaker, where it is proposing or has begun to exercise any power conferred by virtue of paragraph 4 or 5 above in a prescribed case, to make advance payments on account of compensation that will become payable in respect of the exercise of that power.'.

Lords amendment No. 240 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 241 to 266, 268 to 276 and 278 to 311 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 25

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Lords amendment: No. 312, in page 351, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (6).

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendments Nos. 317 to 319.

Lords amendment No. 320, in page 356, line 48, at end insert—
(4) Where the rights and liabilities in respect of any such consent are transferred to a water authority's successor company in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act and the conditions of that consent include one or more of the following, that is to say—

(a) a condition that requires that authority to take samples of any matter discharged;
(b) a condition that requires that authority to furnish any person with information about samples taken by that authority; or

(c) a condition that is contravened where there is a failure by more than a specified number of samples taken by that authority to satisfy specified requirements,

then any such condition as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above shall cease to have effect on the transfer date and any such condition as is mentioned in paragraph (c) above shall have effect on and after that date as if any samples taken on behalf of the Authority in exercise, at any time on or after that date, of a power conferred by this Act, but no other samples, were the samples falling to be taken into account for the purposes of that condition.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 320, in line 13, leave out from 'in' to end of line 19 and insert
`those paragraphs shall have effect on and after the transfer date in the same manner as before that date, except that any reference to samples taken by that authority shall be taken to mean samples taken by the National Rivers Authority insofar as it refers to samples taken after the transfer date.'.

Lords amendment No. 323.

Mr. Howard: In speaking to Lords amendment No. 320, I shall also deal with the Opposition amendment to it, amendment (a), which we believe should be rejected, for the reasons I shall give in support of Lords amendment No. 320.
Schedule 25 provides the transitional provisions in respect of control of pollution from the current arrangements based on water authority functions and Control of Pollution Act powers to the new arrangements involving the NRA and the new powers in part III, chapter 1 of the Bill.
I shall deal first with Lords amendments Nos. 317 and 318, which provide more flexible arrangements for transfer of consent applications submitted by the water authorities to the Secretary of State from the Secretary of State to the NRA at an appropriate stage.
The general principle of the pollution control transitional arrangements is that discretion should be left with the Secretary of State to decide whether any actions, cases or other matters which if begun after vesting would be for the NRA should, if uncompleted on transfer date, be transferred to that authority.
The basic purpose of the technical amendments is to extend to sewage treatment applications the principles operating elsewhere in the pollution control part of the schedule. The effect will be to allow Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to complete work on particular cases in those circumstances where this seems sensible, particularly where the processing of cases is well advanced.
5.30 pm
In that regard, the Government are particularly anxious that the inspectorate should carry through to completion its determination of the applications for time limited consents to regulate the current position of those works included in the £1 billion improvement programme for the period while the improvements are carried out. If that investment programme is to be completed as soon as practicable, as the Government intend, it is essential to avoid the delay and unnecessary duplication of work that could arise from transferring to the NRA consent applications on which the inspectorate had nearly completed consideration.
The amendment also makes provision for two consequential changes. In the first case, a sub-paragraph provides for the Secretary of State to direct the companies as to the advertising of any applications. The Secretary of State in fact intends that all applications under the programme for dealing with non-compliant works should


be advertised in view of the public interest they have aroused. However, the inspectorate also has to deal—and will be dealing at transfer date—with large numbers of minor applications, for which advertising in the London Gazette might not be appropriate. In exercising the discretion given to him by this amendment, the Secretary of State would expect to follow generally the established guidelines in the annex to the current circular 17/84.
The second feature of the amendment is that the Secretary of State is enabled to direct the authority to provide temporary consent for discharges that are the subject of pending applications both in cases where the Secretary of State passes action to the NRA and in those where it is retained with him. The reason for that is that many of the cases in question will be discovery cases, where the water authority discovers, for instance, a sewage overflow that may not previously have been known, or at least identified as requiring consent.
For those circumstances, under paragraph 5 of schedule 12, the NRA will have power to give consents without application for discharges that cannot realistically be interrupted while applications are being advertised and considered. The provision for directions for temporary consents pending such action is a transitional equivalent of this provision. The provision is doubly necessary because the inspectorate expects to have large numbers of consent applications in respect of minor discharges outstanding at the end of August as a result of the rigorous reviews that the water authorities have been undertaking of their operations, in preparation for privatisation, to ensure that any minor discharges of any sort that could require consent are, in fact, duly covered, so that both the new companies and the NRA can begin their lives on a basis of good order and proper regulation.
Amendments Nos. 319 and 320, taken with amendments Nos. 312 and 323, do two things. First, they amend the terms of existing consents for sewage treatment works discharges to eliminate references to water authorities taking samples of the effluent discharged. It would obviously be inappropriate to apply those to the private sewerage undertakers. After the transfer date, it will be for the NRA to take such samples. Secondly, they put it beyond doubt that, where a works compliance is judged by a programme of samples taken over a relevant period, on and after the transfer date only samples taken by the NRA are to count as a basis for prosecutions of the new companies. In other words, the new bodies and their staff shall not be liable for acts and omissions of their predecessor body.
I need not long delay the House on the first two provisions of the amendments, which simply disapply from consents provisions concerning monitoring and reporting by the water authorities. It is surely self-evident that, with the establishment of the NRA, it would not be appropriate for the undertakers to take their own samples and to report on their performance to the Secretary of State. Consequently, those provisions should go.
The remaining provision deals with circumstances in which compliance with discharge consent standards is assessed over a series of samples taken over a 12-month period, that is, the look-up table system used for control of sewage treatment works discharges for the past four years. Compliance is to be assessed only on the basis of samples

taken by the NRA, and therefore the relevant period for assessment of such compliance will begin with the establishment of the NRA and the companies.
Amendments Nos. 312 and 323 establish in the Bill the principle that the new undertakings should not be criminally liable for offences committed by the present water authorities. They simply reflect the principle of criminal case law, established in 1976 in a case heard by the House of Lords, that in the absence of express provision criminal liability does not transfer from one corporate body to another. The amendment changes nothing. In view of the particular concern currently being expressed over criminal liabilities of water authorities, we believe it right, however, that the principle should be clear on the face of the Bill.
However, what we are doing in amendment 323 is nothing new and nothing special. That principle is no more than ordinary justice, securing that the new companies shall not be liable for the actions of a different corporate body going back some 12 months to before legislation to establish the companies was even published.

Mr. Pike: The Minister is dealing with an important point, and it is a considerable variation of what has been said on previous occasions. Can he give us examples from other privatisations, such as gas supply and transport undertakings, where the new bodies have been liable for offences committed by the previous bodies?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct. If he had listened to my point about the case decided in the House of Lords, he would have realised that it established that criminal liability does not transfer from one corporate entity to another. All that we are doing is putting that principle into the Bill.

Mr. Pike: Is the Minister therefore suggesting that any takeover of one corporate body by another in the City will absolve that body of criminal liability for any offence committed prior to the takeover?

Mr. Howard: Of course not. In such cases, the corporate entity usually remains. It may be owned by different shareholders and it may be part of a new group of companies, but it usually remains. In those circumstances, criminal liability will equally remain. That is entirely different from the position that we are contemplating, which is the creation of an entirely new and different corporate entity.

Mr. Alastair Burt: Opposition Members are missing the point. We are discussing the liability of new companies. It has been suggested that they are immune from prosecution for a year and will not be responsible for their actions. Is it not true that, from day one, any breach of the discharge regulations will be counted against the new company? There will be no incentive to breach the regulations, because ultimately the companies can be prosecuted. We should be concerned about the ability to prosecute the new companies that is retained through the clause and improved by the general benefits that flow from the Bill.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right and I shall shortly explain how the Bill's provisions will have precisely the effect that he identified.

Dr. Kim Howells: If it is proved that the water supplied to a certain area has very high aluminium


levels, and if in future there are moves to prosecute the purveyor of water to a community because a causal link is established between aluminum levels and Alzheimer's disease, will there be a let-out for a new company if it claimed that those aluminium levels were the responsibility of the previous water company?

Mr. Howard: Nothing of the sort will happen. The hon. Gentleman will know that the offence of supplying drinking water that is unfit for human consumption is a new offence created by the Bill. We are discussing criminal liability. It will not be possible for the new companies to escape liability on the ground that the cause of any criminal liability should somehow be ascribed to their predecessors.
The only provision made by the clauses and amendments that are now under discussion is the requirement that samples to establish the deficiency of the water concerned must be taken after the new companies exist if they are to find criminal liability in the new companies. The existing companies remain responsible for any samples that are taken which establish any liability on their part. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be assured by that answer to the points that he has raised.
The suggestion that the amendments involve an amnesty is wrong and without foundation. Samples of sewage discharges up to the day of transfer will, as I told the hon. Gentleman, be actionable against the water authority and against the residual water authority maintained in being after transfer. Samples of discharges from the day of transfer will be actionable at the due time against the new company. Not a single sample will be subject to an amnesty. Every one will be actionable against the residual authority or the new company. The so-called amnesty, of which the Opposition make so much, is a figment of their collective imagination.
But what of the variation on that theme—that the principle will, in practice, produce unacceptable results, that the NRA will be crippled at birth, and so on? That argument is also an absurdity, bearing no relationship to the facts, for four reasons.
First, and most important, there will, as I have said, be no immunity in the early stages of the companies' lives. It is quite wrong to suggest that the companies will be able to discharge what they like and get away with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) has just said, companies will have to comply with the terms of their present conditions from the outset, and failures will go on the public registers. Non-complying samples will clock up against them. They will not be discounted. If the record reveals non-compliance over the sampling period, the NRA will be able to bring prosecutions in respect of breaches of the discharge consents for that period.
Secondly, discharge consents for all works now non-compliant, or at a high risk of non-complying, which are varied for the period during which improvement works are in progress, will in any case include so-called "upper tier" limits, a single breach of which will open the company immediately to the risk of prosecution. As well as being an important environmental safeguard, that will provide the NRA with a new enforcement mechanism for those works.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister says that the upper tier limit will be another safeguard, but he must be aware of reports that have already come in from people who are to work in the NRA regional offices that they are

extremely worried about the level of the upper tier limits which, in some cases, could lead to water of the strength of raw sewage being pumped into our rivers.

Mr. Howard: The levels of the upper tier consents have not yet been determined. We shall take all representations into account in determining them. But that is a far cry from the Opposition's charge in relation to those matters, that there will be a year's so-called amnesty. The hon. Lady is now suggesting that there will not be an amnesty. She is accepting that prosecutions can be brought immediately against the new companies, but she is complaining, in advance of any standards being assessed, about the levels of those upper tier discharge consents.

Mrs. Taylor: I am not suggesting that there will not be an amnesty. I stick by the points that Opposition Members made earlier, on which we shall have time to elaborate shortly. However, the Minister mentioned a specific problem with regard to upper tier limits. Will he confirm that people working in the shadow NRA tell us that limits could be so relaxed that raw sewage could be pumped into our rivers?

Mr. Howard: The limits have not yet been fixed. Anybody can speculate on what might happen if they were at some hypothetical value, but the fact is that they have not been determined. Let me continue to deal with why the Opposition's charge is completely bogus.
Thirdly, in the case of all the other works with no history of non-compliance, it is unlikely that samples taken by the water authority before the transfer date would have any significance for prosecution purposes. It is true that the NRA would need to take samples over a 12-month period before bringing a prosecution, but it is the position now that compliance for sewage treatment works is assessed retrospectively over a 12-month period. That is not new. As hon. Members may know, it was introduced in 1985, following research by the water research centre, and reflects the volatility of sewage effluents and the 95 per cent. basis on which standards are set.
In practical terms, we must remember that prosecution is a tool of last resort. While this will be a matter for the NRA, early evidence of possible non-compliance is likely to be a trigger for investigations and discussions with the discharger. The NRA, under its normal enforcement policy, would want to go through a number of stages, including warnings, before contemplating prosecution.
5.45 pm
Finally, the Secretary of State is enabled under paragraph 6 of schedule 12 to direct the NRA at any time to revoke or vary consents where it appears to him appropriate to do so for the protection of public health or flora or fauna. In the event that the NRA is seriously concerned about a particular discharge and about constraints within the consent on its ability to take enforcement action, it could draw the case to the attention of the Secretary of State. It would be open to him to direct the authority to revoke or vary the consent, perhaps by imposition of an upper tier limit whose breach made possible immediate enforcement action.
For those four reasons, any argument that the NRA will be significantly impeded in its enforcement role by the terms of these amendments is wholly without foundation. The amendments ensure that we follow a fair and proper


course. It is a course that holds no risks for the NRA, for pollution control or for its effective enforcement. Above all, the amendments ensure that the new companies—the result of a massive reorganisation and restructuring of the water industry—are criminally liable only for those actions for which they were actually responsible. The House should surely accept that as the fair and relevant principle on which to approach those matters.
I apologise for delaying the House so long with explanations, but it is clearly right that I should dispel the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of recent days.

Ms. Joan Walley: River water quality has been declining in recent years. In addition to industrial discharges, the main cause of that deterioration is the direct discharge of untreated sewage effluent. It is that with which the amendments deal and about which we are concerned.
Sewage degrades more rivers than any other pollutants. To what extent, if at all, will the Government succeed in their stated intention of cleaning up the rivers? The Opposition do not believe that they will. They cannot. Despite what the Minister has just said, the Lords amendment to schedule 25 would protect the plcs from the consequences of criminal actions, based on the quality of sewage effluence, before flotation. The fines that people are having to pay are worth almost nothing. The Opposition would much rather concentrate on a preventive approach in the cleaning up of sewage treatment works.
Where is the even-handedness in the Government's approach? Why do the Government argue that water plcs are different from other privatised industries? Why are the arrangements different from those that were made when the old Greater London council's responsibilities and liabilities were transferred to the residuary bodies? Why is water different?
Even the Minister must accept that the amendment is hurried. It has been introduced at the last stage when the going is getting even tougher for the Government. If, as the Minister says, the legal position is clear, why did he have to table the amendment in the first place? Is not that a further reason against privatisation? This hurried amendment will make look-up tables and consent standards start from scratch on day one after vesting. Compliance with sewage discharge consents will be assessed over a 12-month period by reference to a look-up table of specific parameters. Sewage works will have to comply with the consent conditions in the look-up table for 95 per cent. of the time. Therefore, a prosecution can be based only on post-vesting samples. No prosecutions will be possible until at least 12 months after privatisation.
It is no answer for the hon. and learned Gentleman to argue that the amendment is of a transitional nature and that the staff and the plcs should not be liable for the acts and omissions of their predecessors. If the Lords amendments relate simply to a transitional measure, why was it not in the Bill all along? If the samples clocked up over the past year are to have no legal backing after privatisation, what will be the implications for the National Rivers Authority and for private prosecutions? How can the Minister justify the NRA being powerless to prosecute for a whole year while rivers continue to be

polluted? How does the Minister propose to deal with pending cases? Why have the Government not found a fairer way of introducing transitional provisions?
The Government are compromising on the environment, as they did through all the stages of the Bill. Why are the Government compromising on public health and the basis of the NRA? The amendments are aimed at achieving those compromises.
What does the Minister have to say about the comments of one of his noble Friends, who is a member of the NRA committee, to the effect that the water companies were being given a 12-month, prosecution-free holiday, and that the Government are ditching environmentalists to save the sell-off? How will the NRA and its future staff feel about that? How will it be able to fulfil its role as the much-acclaimed preventer of pollution? We do not believe that it can fulfil that role effectively.
It would be bad enough if the undertakers were not at risk of prosecution only for the first 12 months after the sell-off, but when amendment No. 312 is placed in the context of all the other changes made to sewage discharge consents, there is a case for real public concern.
The Government invited applications for interim consents. The Minister defends one year of immunity by introducing an upper tier value for the first time. Why, at the start of the debate, was the Minister unable to tell the House what that upper limit will be? Why, in the final stages of the debate, have we not been given any idea of that upper limit? Will it be five times as high as the average effluent level, as we understand the plcs want it to be, or twice as high, as the NRA wants? Will it be three times as high, as the Government have suggested that it could be? Rather than trying to defend immunity from prosecution, the Minister should reveal what the upper limit will be.
Why are the Government rushing through applications for the relaxation of consents standards for sewage treatment works? That is happening in the Severn-Trent area and in others throughout the country. Is it true that, although approximately 842 applications have been received for interim time-limited relaxations, a proportion of the remainder are for long-term relaxations of numerical consents standards that will not be time-limited? What about the third category of applications for changing from numerical to descriptive consents standards? If the Secretary of State and the Minister for Water and Planning are as concerned about controlling pollution as they would have us believe, why have they waived the advertising requirement for descriptive consents? We believe that that is at the heart of the matter, and at the centre of the deception inherent in all of the amendments.
In a letter to Friends of the Earth dated 2 June, the Department of the Environment stated that there will be no relaxation of pollution control standards, yet applications for such relaxations have been invited, submitted and rushed through. The chance of improving river quality becomes even more remote, particularly when one considers the further damaging effects of the Government's reponse to applications to relax consents standards. The Government claim that such relaxations will merely regularise the position, to ensure that they are consistent with the current quality of effluent. The Government's definition of "current" is so shabby that there is no real hope of improving standards, which makes the Bill doubly iniquitous.
Even more dangerous is the Government's attitude to the general duty in section 1 of the Water Act 1973 which


requires Ministers jointly to promote a national water policy involving the maintenance and restoration—I stress the word "restoration"—of the wholesomeness of water. How can the hon. and learned Gentleman think of relaxing standards when there is a general duty on Ministers to maintain and to restore them? What has happened to that duty? Clearly the Government will be challenged, and my right hon. and hon. Friends will work with the general public and with environmental groups throughout the country to ensure that every consent application is challenged.
We do not believe that the equivalent of raw sewage should be discharged into Britain's rivers. The Government will face challenges in the courts as soon as standards are relaxed. If the Government care so much about improving standards, why did they repeal section 1 of the Water Act 1973—the very legislation that made a general commitment to improve water quality? Why is there no general duty to restore and maintain the quality of controlled water? What happened to the commitment entered into in July 1987 to set statutory quality objectives for rivers? Why will they not be set until 1992, as was stated in a letter to the water authorities that was sent out last year?
The United Kingdom is a signatory to directives aimed at setting legally binding standards of river quality. Will the Minister give an assurance that, when determining the 1,070 or more applications, he will in every case discharge the United Kingdom's obligation to prevent pollution by dangerous substances and to achieve compliance with the relevant environmental quality objectives that the directives specify?
Here we are, in the final throes of the debate about water privatisation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Conservative Members may shout, "Hear, hear", but whatever we may be told about improving standards and dealing with pollution, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I know that the Lords amendments are designed only to deal with the legacy of the Government's failure to invest public money in the infrastructure.
Why should we believe that the group of amendments before the House will achieve improved standards, as the Minister says? The general public cannot be fooled. In a recent poll commissioned by The Observer, only 2 per cent. of the sample rated the Government's record of pollution control as very good. Until the Lords amendments are on the statute book, and if our amendment is not carried, not even 2 per cent. of the population will rate the Government's record on pollution control as very good. Far from coming to an end—I say this for the benefit of those hon. Members who shouted "Hear, hear"—the pollution debate and others concerning our water supplies, sewage discharge consents and the totally unacceptable 12-month immunity from prosecution have only just begun.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Provided that the right of action against the authorities in respect of pollution does not disappear, surely the bodies that will replace the authorities, and all their employees, should be liable in respect of the pollution that the new bodies cause? Is that not fair?

6 pm

Ms. Walley: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that this is not a realistic way of viewing the problem, and that what he suggests is merely a token method of dealing with it.

Mr. Chris Mullin: If the Government's proposal is such an obviously good idea as they now claim, why did no one think of it in Committee? Why did not the Minister suggest it during those 200 hours of debate?

Ms. Walley: As always, my hon. Friend has made a very apt point. The Government did not see fit to present the measure during the many hours of debate in Committee; they have had to introduce it in the final stages as a bribe to enable the sell-off to go ahead, because they know—as the public know—that they are in serious difficulties with their water privatisation programme.
Opposition Members know that the debate is only just beginning. Men, women and children—I do not think that the Government understand how important this is to women and children, who are as informed as ever about the state of the environment—know and care enough to ensure that the debate continues. The Opposition, together with environmental and conservation groups, will make certain that the issue stays at the heart of the continuing controversy about this immoral water privatisation legislation.

Mr. Livsey: The Lords amendments are a national scandal. The new water undertakers will be exempted from criminal liability for their discharges, and liability will not be transferred to another corporate body. Freedom of prosecution is to be extended for at least 12 months, and, according to some people's reckoning, for 18 months. Water authorities are now polluting and getting away with it, a state of affairs that will continue under a private monopoly. That breaches what is surely one of the prime environmental principles—that the polluters must pay.
The amendments will cripple the pollution inspectorate. In exposing the callousness of the Government's attitude to the environment and, indeed, to public health, they rumble the Government's privatisation programme. Their aim, however, is to rescue the Government from the hole into which they have dug themselves. If the plcs are to go free from prosecution, the flotation will not be jeopardised. That is what it is all about.
In the past year, 1,000 sewage works in England and Wales broke consent standards. The water authorities cannot sign flotation prospectuses while they are persistently committing criminal offences, so the transfer will be impossible until they are free from prosecution. So many sewage works are breaking the law-20 per cent. at present—that the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will not be able to get through all the paperwork by November, when the arrangements must be tied up.
On 12 June I asked the Secretary of State for Wales to list the number of sewage works in Wales that were failing established effluent pollution standards. The Under-Secretary provided a list of 102 treatment works that had failed to meet consent standards during 1988, from Presteigne in my constituency to Weston Beggard on the Herefordshire border, and including many other instances throughout the Welsh water authority area.
This is a huge problem, and it is no wonder that the Government are trying to get themselves off the hook. According to yesteday's Western Mail, they are asking for immunity for 124 Welsh sewage works, só the position has deteriorated since 1988. In 1987–88 there were 20,000 breaches of pollution standards in rivers in England and Wales. Only 1 per cent. of offenders were prosecuted, and in only one instance was the maximum fine of £2,000 imposed. That is, in any event, a trivial fine; we should not forget that pollution also affects drinking water quality.
Any pretensions to commitment on green issues on the part of the Government are a sham, and the Lords amendment proves it. On Monday morning, I stood on the banks of the River Tawe in the Swansea valley with members of the Tawe angling society, discussing the Welsh water authority's application—as shown in the Western Mail on 22 June—to increase discharges from the Ystradgynlais sewage works. We tried to calculate the number of cubic metres of effluent that would be discharged into the river, and the likely effect on the fishery. If we were to stand there in 12 months' time, we decided, there would probably be no fishery, and no fish in the river for the angling society's members.

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying deliberately to mislead his constituents or anyone else. He must appreciate that the effect of the water authority's application in respect of its sewage treatment works at Ystradgynlais—as with other treatment works elsewhere—will be to regularise the existing position, not to allow more sewage to be discharged into the river. The works does not comply with the consent standard at present. Works will be put in hand to enable it to meet that standard, and during the interim period the authority should be allowed not to discharge more sewage than it does now, but to continue the discharge at the present level. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that? Will he stop misleading his constituents and the House?

Mr. Livsey: The Minister knows perfectly well that the discharges into the River Tawe are unacceptable, and the position will not be improved by the transfer of the discharge to a private monopoly which will go scot-free for the next 12 months. That is scandalous. Surely it would be far better if the treatment works, and a thousand like it, were put right before privatisation.

Mr. Howard: How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the sewage works at Ystradgynlais can be put magically into a condition that complies with its existing discharge content? Will he wave a magic wand? He must appreciate that it will take time for the work to be carried out, and that while it is being carried out, it makes sense for the authority not to be prosecuted if the improvements that he and I want are to be put into place.

Mr. Livsey: The Minister clearly accepts that there is no reason to privatise the industry. I rest my case.

Mr. Burt: I rise to support this series of amendments and to express surprise at the extraordinary amount of sanctimonious humbug that has come from Opposition Members. One might have got the impression from their remarks that they had been friends of the environment from day one—that when Labour Members were in sole office, or when they held power during the Lib-Lab pact,

their record on investment and the control of pollution had been so good that they could lecture us all about what they had achieved. In fact, an enormous burden of guilt rests on Labour Members, and that has coloured the way in which they approach the amendments that we are discussing, but I will come to that shortly.
I accept what has been said about basic natural justice in this case—[Interruption.] While that point has merit, it is more important for Opposition Members, who I see grinning, to accept that the greatest sanction against the new companies does not lie simply in the fact of prosecution. It lies in the fact that the threat of prosecution begins on day one. If there had been a suggestion that prosecution procedures could not start on day one—because of some delay relating sampling to the process of law—hon. Members in all parts of the House would have expressed concern, for we are all concerned about pollution and the environment and feel strongly about the need for the problems to be tackled.
The important points are that the prosecution process can begin on day one and that the new companies will have no immunity. I cannot believe that the new companies will have any vested interest in fooling about with the discharges that they make right from the start simply because prosecution may be some way off. The threat, the sanction, against the new companies is clear and straightforward.
Opposition Members have overdone the immunity point by trying to suggest that the control of pollution will be drastically affected for the worse. Again, they have failed to stress that prosecution of existing authorities goes right up to the last possible day and that the process of prosecution of the new companies can start the day after. They have also failed to concentrate sufficiently on the importance of the upper tier of protection, which is new and which the Government have introduced. That can allow the new rivers authority to act immediately there has been a breach. That protection does not exist at present. It did not exist when Labour Members were in office and had control of the extent of river pollution. It is an additional, significant new power and it will work.
I return to the principal question of guilt which has coloured the action of Opposition Members in this House and in the other place. When the Conservatives came to office, we were faced with the task of clearing out the Augean stables of effluent left by years of neglect by Labour Members. They failed to implement the Control of Pollution Act 1974, although they now claim to have a good record on its implementation. Their failure to implement that Act prevented the public from bringing prosecutions.

Mr. Morley: I do not want to prolong the debate by delaying the hon. Gentleman's remarks because I am anxious that we concentrate on the main issue. If matters have been so wonderful under the Conservatives, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain why—when river and water quality standards generally improved under the last Labour Government and before then—for the first time almost since the second world war, in the last 10 years, under Conservative rule, river water quality has been deteriorating? In my area, the local river has deteriorated for the fourth successive year, after progressive improvements.

Mr. Burt: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman hoping that he would admit some burden of guilt of his party for the failures of the past. He failed to point out that 95 per cent. of our rivers are in good or fair condition, which places us equal top of the European Community league. The failure in the past to invest has undoubtedly caused distress to his constituents now, but as he bears no shame or repentance for that, I must move on.
The economic failure in the past which caused the lack of investment is inherently part of the Opposition's case today. In the other place, Lady Platt said that failure to invest had been a boost for the polluter. I agree, and only as a result of the Bill are we really tackling that legacy of pollution.
Secrecy clouded our perception in the past of the efficiency of sewage treatment works. We have cast that secrecy aside, knowing that it is more important to be open about the way in which treatment plants work so that the public may know exactly what is happening. Public pressure to improve—that is very much part of the Bill —will lead to better standards in future.
There is a marked contrast between the two sides of the House about the way in which pollution has been and is being tackled. Our implementation of the Control of Pollution Act, the return of investment to deal with sewage treatment and getting rid of secrecy has resulted in considerable improvements being achieved in recent years, and those improvements will continue. About 80 per cent. of Britain's sewage works are meeting the control of pollution standards. Although that is a good record, we must do better.
The new provisions have been misinterpreted by Opposition Members as immunity from prosecution, which they are not. They have been misinterpreted largely because Labour Members bear such a burden of guilt for the way in which pollution was handled when they were in government, compared with the length of time it has taken us, with the improving economy, to tackle the issue. The Bill will help further improvements to be made.
The amendments represent a further example of how we will be tackling pollution in future and how the new companies will be under pressure from the start. The upper tier provisions will represent a guarantee against pollution. Such a guarantee has not existed previously. I congratulate the Government on introducing this series of amendments.

Dr. Kim Howells: We on the Labour Benches have been hoping for too much. We hoped that the new green shawl which the Government have pulled over their shoulders would be an improvement on the usual threadbare variety that they have worn in the past.
Let us be clear that this series of amendments is designed solely to facilitate the birth of the new plcs. As has been made clear, they cannot be born without amendments such as these because they will not be able to operate sewage works until they have signed the flotation prospectus. They cannot do that if they are persistently committing criminal offences.
We are not conducting an abstract political debate. I am willing to admit that river quality has improved. The problem is that the improvements usually occur in the upper rivers. The rivers flow through open countryside before reaching towns and sewage treatment works. I cite the most famous of all Welsh rivers—the one after which

we are named—the Taff. It flows right in front of my front door. The Taff is a beautiful river until it reaches the first of the Welsh water authority's sewage treatment plants. From there on down the valley it is a disgrace. The river banks are festooned with the most unsightly rubbish, most of which has come from discharges from sewage plants during periods of high rainfall.
I do not know whether other hon. Members live near such rivers. Everybody living in the valleys of south Wales cannot ignore the rivers, because they live so close by them. We see them every day. It may be possible in other areas to ignore the filth that is put into the rivers. That cannot easily be done in south Wales.
I take up the Minister's challenge to talk about the existing position because what I have described is the existing position. Walking anywhere along the lower Taff one sees small islands of sewage drifting down the river. They threaten to turn the wonderful new Cardiff Bay development corporation barrage into the smelliest dockside development anywhere in western Europe. It is a disgrace and we should not have to live with it.
As the Minister for Water and Planning said, the new plcs will not be equipped with magic wands that will clean up the rivers on vesting day. They will inherit the present appalling sewage discharges into our rivers. The amendments do not address the immediate problem, which is to spend capital on sewage treatment plants so that we comply as quickly as possible with the European Community's minimum standards. That is not the central purpose of the amendments. They provide for a honeymoon period during which the new companies will be able to make investment decisions which may or may not boost their profits. Hard decisions will not have to be made during that period about cleaning up their act. The decisions that the new companies make will be designed primarily to improve profits as soon as possible.
My claim, and that of many others in my constituency and of people throughout Wales who live close to rivers and who have witnessed the deterioration of our rivers as a result of sewage discharges every single day, is that the amendments will do nothing to improve the position.

Mr. Leigh: I wish that all 55 million members of the public could have witnessed the Committee proceedings and also these proceedings. Then they could have compared the logic of the Minister of Water and Planning's case with the anecdotal prejudice of Opposition Members, which has been revealed very clearly in this debate.
There are four very good reasons why the Opposition amendment should not be agreed to. These reasons would stand up in any court of law or in front of any objective assembly. First, from day one the private water companies will be responsible for any breaches of discharge consents. Secondly, we are establishing upper tier limits that have never been established before. Thirdly, under paragraph 6 of schedule 12 the National Rivers Authority will be empowered to take immediate enforcement action against any company that breaches the discharge consents. Fourthly, it will be a breach of natural justice, as is well understood under our legal system, for a new company to be made responsible for the faults of its predecessors. Those are four good reasons why the amendment is incomprehensible. What a pity that the public could not have heard my hon. and learned Friend say just that.
We have had nearly 200 hours of debate. We are in the closing moments of what should have been the flagship of the Labour party's opposition to this Government—the flagship that would take the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) into the shadow cabinet. What was she reduced to in the closing moments of the debate? What bright new ideas did she put forward? She was reduced to talking about transitional arrangements for sewage. She could not even get her case together very well. In time, members of the public will compare the position next year and the year after that with the position a few years ago.
Yesterday I asked five questions at the beginning of our debate about the Labour Government's record. I asked whether they had implemented part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the bathing beaches directive. Once again the hon. Member for Dewsbury is looking down at her notes. I shall be happy to give way to her. I referred to the secrecy at that time and to the prohibition of prosecutions by members of the public. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Lady is mumbling under her breath, but she cannot answer these questions.
Members of the public will compare what happened 10 years ago with what will happen in a few years time. For the first time, an environmental protection agency—I do not know what the hon. Lady is drawing from her handbag. Perhaps she could explain why the level of investment under the last Labour Government was going down, whereas now it is going up. In a few years, members of the public will see the establishment of a strong National Rivers Authority that is capable of looking after our environment. They will also see that powerful companies will be able for the first time to invest in the infrastructure. That investment has always been denied to the water industry. That is the truth and those are the facts. What a pity that every member of the public could not hear the debates.

Mr. Keith Bradley: As we move into the last half hour of our seven months of deliberations on the Water Bill, it is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) should still be trying to convince himself that there is some political merit in the Bill. I, too, wish that members of the public had been able to hear the months of deliberation in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman's four questions could have been so simply answered, why did the Government not table an amendment in Committee so that the issues could be properly debated then? Instead, they tried to sneak in a proposal on a Friday afternoon in the other place, thus denying the Opposition the opportunity to table an amendment to it. The Government knew that they were in trouble and that they had to sneak in this polluters' charter, this polluters' paradise, to ensure that flotation will have a modicum of success.
During the last seven months the public have given overwhelming support to the Opposition. The public are anxious about the quality of water and about the pollution of our rivers. Opinion polls showed that there was 96 per cent. opposition to this measure. Today we have heard that only 2 per cent. of the public are in favour of it. I am quite sure, having analysed The Observer poll, that the 2 per cent. is made up of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Water and Planning.

Mr. Burt: rose—

Mr Bradley: I see that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) is leaping to the Government's support. However, having looked at his majority I do not think that, if I were he, I should be standing up quite so confidently because I believed that the public in Bury like the Bill.
This last-minute amendment is the last obnoxious amendment to an obnoxious Bill which the public do not support. The Government have tried to mislead the public into thinking that this is merely a transitional arrangement. If that is so, why oh why did a Minister not stand up months ago and table the amendment as a major plank in the Government's war against pollution? There was absolute silence. The industry has turned on the Government. It feared what would happen if it had to comply with the quality of water and sampling requirements that had been in force during the previous few months. The industry said to the Government, "We want an easy ride. Please, Minister, give us that easy ride." Of course the Minister gave it that easy ride.
The new water companies want the assets, the land and the juicy contracts but they do not want the liabilities that go with the good bits. If they have to take on the old liabilities, they know that privatisation will not be successful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) so eloquently put it, why oh why when the Government abolished the county councils, including the Greater Manchester council, did they not wipe the slate clean and remove all the liabilities? Instead of doing that, they transferred them to the new district authorities, which had to take them over. Any litigation that was outstanding at that stage was not suddenly wiped out. The public were not told that, because the Government were abolishing the metropolitan authorities, any cases against them would be expunged. Those cases were passed on, in the same way as prosecutions ought to be passed on to the new water companies.
However much the Minister may protest otherwise, the powers of the National Rivers Authority will be undermined from day one. That has to be contrasted with the excellent proposals of the Labour party. The Labour Government after the next general election will ensure that provision is made for environmental protection.
The Minister has tried to justify the amendment on four points, which were as shallow as many of his other arguments. I know that time is limited, but I wish to pick up one point. Will the Minister make absolutely clear what will happen to private prosecutions that are already in the pipeline? Will those well-researched private prosecutions, with samples taken and very effective cases put together, fall when the new companies take over, regardless of their status or the period in which they have built up? Will all those private prosecutions fall as a result of the amendment? We need to be absolutely clear about that.
6.30 pm
In the final half hour of the debate, it must be said that the Labour party has had to be seen as the real safeguarder of the environment and as the people who really care about the environment and pollution. I have spoken at meetings throughout the country, particularly in Manchester, my city. The people of Manchester will not forgive the Government for trying to privatise their water.


I have spoken at meetings all over Greater Manchester and not one voice has been raised in support of the Bill. The public have expressed massive anxiety about the quality of their water, local beaches, and rivers. They know that that can be effectively controlled and monitored and better standards implemented only by public investment in our water industry. The Labour party is committed to that. When a Labour Government get back into power they will bring water back as a public utility, with proper safeguards and proper environmental controls. We will not have to give handouts to people who want to make a quick buck out of our water.
The Bill has been framed to give profits to the City slickers, to people who do not care about our environment or the quality of our water. That will be the vanguard of the defeat of the hon. Member for Bury, North and many other Conservative Members who do not care about our environment.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I hope that the House will forgive me if I move away from party political hyperbole to mention my concern about amendment No. 320, which appears to provide an avenue for transferring the pollution liability, following the issue of consents to pollution, to private water authorities when the Bill is enacted. That would be fine if the monitoring of pollution in the existing system were adequate. It is not and it should be improved. I need some reassurance that the proposal in amendment No. 320 will do the job.
My particular concern is the pollution of water by fluoridation. I have no doubt about the Government's commitment to pure water, but I am not sure that they fully understand what pure water is. For years they accepted that the existing legislation on the purity of water allowed fluoridation, and for years the anti-fluoridationists said that the Government's interpretation of the law that the fluoridation of water was in accordance with the water legislation was wrong. Eventually, the matter was tested and a court in Scotland decided that the Government's interpretation of what was meant by the purity of water was wrong. The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 was passed to make right what had hitherto been wrong. For many years successive Governments were wrong about what was meant by pure water.
The Government have provided for polluting the water by allowing water authorities, on the request of health authorities, to add fluoride to the water. Now, in amendment No. 166, the possibility is to be transferred to the Secretary of State, if he sees fit, which he may not, and if he can get the permission of the Treasury—which the Treasury will be reluctant to give, as it is with any blank cheque—for the continuing provision of an indemnity if evil effects follow the fluoridation of water. If I were a cost-conscious water undertaker, I should be wary of relying on the ifs and buts of amendment No. 166, which we have just allowed into the Bill, to get me out of financial trouble in the event of an accidental excessive discharge causing suffering to humans.
To repeat my four-and-a-half-hour introduction to a speech on the evils of fluoridation—the mass medication of our drinking water by a poison when the dose is unknown because it is uncontrollable, when individual susceptibility to harm is unknown, when the value to an individual is unknown and when there is substantial evidence that it is unbeneficial to the teeth, harmful to the health and is a massive infringement of the liberty of the

individual to be forced medically to be treated against his will—would be out of order, so I have no intention of doing so. But I hope that I am in order when I suggest that the conditions set out in amendment No. 320,

"(a) a condition that requires that authority to take samples of any matter discharged;
(b) a condition that requires that authority to furnish any person with information about samples taken by that authority"

and that set out in paragraph (c) are totally and utterly inadequate. As they exist now in our water provision, they do not work. They have done nothing to limit the possibility of a Camelford incident. Had hexafluorosilicicacid been poured into the water supply, it would have killed people and not fish and would have done much more than cause sickness and ill-health to the people in that area.
The present rules have done nothing to stop the current overdose of fluoride as it gets into our systems cumulatively through food, industrial processes, toothpaste—which has a high incidence of fluoride and is swallowed by children—fluoride tablets and the one part per million in the water supply where it is fluoridated. The overfeeding of the water supply has recently been tabulated in north Lincolnshire, where for many years an excess above the one part per million has gone into the drinking water. At 15 January 1986, 3·88 parts per million were put into the drinking water. That is just one example. Often when a test is carried out and the figures are forthcoming it appears that the proportion is above the limit that is allowed.
An increasing incidence of mottling of the teeth throughout the country is disfiguring young people, particularly girls, because levels of fluoride of one part per million or 1·5 parts per million have a considerable effect, but the Government seem to have taken no account of it. There is evidence that 10 per cent. of young people have their teeth adversely affected and disfigured by as little as 2 mg of fluoride per day.
I understand that this debate must now come to an end. This is a shortened version of my fluoridation speech, but the provision for monitoring the addition of fluoride to our water at the point of entry into the system is not satisfactory. Therefore, it is important for us to start monitoring the amount of fluoride in our sewage at the point of exit. That is why the conditions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) should be toughened. They should take account of the fluoride content of sewage. Only then would we know the volume of fluoride which comes out of the body and that would produce some idea of the enormous amount more which is retained in the body. One of the great evils of fluoride is that it does not pass out of the system at anything like the rate it should to be healthy. The proposed provisions are inadequate because they do not improve upon the existing system of checking consents which is totally inadequate.
Of course, there is another way of stopping the risk of disfiguring teeth and the threat to the life and health of people, and that is to do what was done in West Germany, Holland and Sweden. Because of the medical objections, and to some extent the political objections, to the dangers of fluoridating public drinking water, fluoridation of the water was banned. I have no doubt that during our lifetime fluoride in the drinking water of the United Kingdom will be banned because eventually Governments will realise


what a danger it is to people's health, quite apart from the fact that it is an appalling infringement of the individual's liberty.

Mr. Morley: During the debate, I have heard arguments that have been somewhat tortuous and bizarre. It is remarkable that some hon. Members have argued that simply because the water authorities are moving from the public to the private authority they are no longer responsible for past misdemeanours and discharge levels. It is as though the Minister—I do not wish this upon him —were suddenly hit by a National Bus Company bus and broke his arm, the bus company was broken up and sold to other divisions and the company said, "We no longer have that corporate structure. We are no longer responsible for the damage that occurred under the other company, even though the same management and capital investment are in place and we have the same vehicles and installations." That is what is happening with the water authorities. To argue otherwise is ludicrous.
People in my constituency are not happy about the relaxation of discharge limits placed on sewage works. The limit on sewage outfall at the villages of Winteringham and Winterton is to be relaxed. At present, raw sewage is pumped into the Humber, having gone through merely a screening process to remove the larger bits. Under the Government's proposals, the companies will be able to pump raw sewage into rivers for a year. It will take that long to carry out the sampling and collect all the information that is needed before action can be taken.
The Minister may recall that the Opposition argued that the National Rivers Authority should have been set up a year in advance of privatisation so that it was up and running, ready to do the job it was supposed to do. That would have been a year in which to put things right and divert some money. The Minister could easily do that, even at this stage, by recommending postponement of the flotation for a year to tackle these problems.
To help, I shall give the Minister some suggestions about how the water companies could do that. They could divert the millions of pounds spent on stupid advertisements telling people what they already know, which would go a long way towards dealing with some of the problems. By postponing the flotation, £850 million a year could be saved—the cost of the privatisation programme that will bear on consumers every year in which the water companies are in the private sector. The water authorities' profits could be diverted to deal with infrastructure investment, but that cannot be done when they are due to be flogged off. That is why the Government are transferring the water authorities to the private sector without taking account of my modest suggestion to delay flotation for a year. In doing that, the Minister is polluting our rivers and putting our water quality standards at risk.
By voting for this measure, the Minister is breaking the law. By encouraging Conservative Members to do the same, he is encouraging them to break the law. That law is EEC directive 79/409, a wildlife directive, which states:
Member States shall strive to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats".
By giving this 12-month exemption from prosecution—a licence to pollute—the Government are in breach of that EEC directive. Every member of the Government who votes for this measure votes for a breach of that directive.
I hope that my hon. Friends will take this matter up with Labour Members of the European Parliament—who, following the last European election, represent most people in the United Kingdom—and insist that the EEC take action through European courts, as the Government are clearly in breach of that directive.
6.45 pm
The Government may win the vote, using their usual steamroller tactics, but they have lost the arguments on water privatisation all the way along. Every opinion poll and every person to whom one talks says that that is so. To suggest that the public have been misled is patronising to the people who have weighed up the arguments, considered the facts and rightly concluded that water privatisation will do nothing to bring forward improvements in water quality standards and will, at worst, jeopardise what we already have and undermine those standards. In the amendments, the Government have been putting forward not green policies but greedy policies, and they will pay the price for them.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: We have had an interesting debate on an important topic. The Minister started in a typical way. Sometimes I think that his tactic in these debates is to sound so boring that we will all lose interest and perhaps go away. Sometimes he wants to sound so technical that people will feel intimidated. As that tactic has not worked so far throughout our proceedings, he was rather hopeful in expecting it to work today.
In one way, it is appropriate that this is the last amendment and the last debate during the Bill's passage. The Government's action—first, in relaxing the consent levels for sewage treatment plants that are operating illegally and, now, in introducing this immunity—is typical of their attitudes towards pollution and the environment generally. Their action today blows the lid off any claim that they make that the Bill is remotely green. The amendment to give immunity to water companies whose sewage treatment plants have been operating illegally shows that the Government do not care about pollution, standards or the environment.
The Government have presided over an outrageous increase in pollution. There has been an enormous increase in pollution incidents of all kinds. In 1980–81, there were about 12,500 incidents. In 1987–88, there were 23,253 incidents. One reason for the increase has been the attitude of the water authorities—approved by the Government —in trying to persuade water polluters to reform rather than prosecuting them. Only about 1·5 per cent. are prosecuted. That approach has meant that polluters have found it cheaper to continue to pollute, and risk being caught, prosecuted and given a small fine, than to invest in pollution prevention.
The Government have told us many times that one reason for the few prosecutions is that the water authorities have set a bad example with sewage treatment plants, hence the proposals—which we would take further —for an independent National Rivers Authority. We were told that we had to separate the gamekeeper and poacher to solve these problems, yet the NRA is to be handicapped from the start because of the Government's amendments. If the NRA cannot prosecute the water companies for breaches by sewage treatment plants, what will lesser polluters say when the NRA tries to prosecute them during that first year once the water authorities are privatized


when it is imperative that the right tone is set? If prosecutions are not possible during that first year—we have established that they are not—that is the wrong message, as one Conservative Member said yesterday.
We have heard about the statements made by the chairman of the South West water authority, a man who regards his future career as being in the privatised water industry. He has said that he believes that it will be the job of the new private water companies to outwit the regulators. That is recorded as his approach. The regulators will not need outwitting, because the Secretary of State is doing that job for the companies. He is making private prosecutions virtually impossible, and he is tying one hand of the National Rivers Authority behind its back before it even starts its work. That may have a knock-on effect on its ability to prosecute.
It was significant that the Minister did not mention any deadline by which the sewage treatment plants will have to comply. I take that as an admission that there is no deadline for compliance. In Committee, he said that he hoped—
in some circumstances and when it is easy"—
that sewage treatment plants might come up to scratch by 1992, but he has given no guarantee that that will be the case. His letter to the water authorities states:
Where additional investment cannot be justified in terms of significant benefits … meaning the sewage treatment plants may have to continue operating below the standards that are required.
The Government's priority has not been discernible during the debate. Their priority is not the price of water, the quality of drinking water, or ensuring that sewage treatment plants do not pollute our rivers. Their priority is simply to ensure that the water companies are able to take advantage of the industry's assets without taking on any of the liabilities.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said yesterday that this amendment would "send the wrong signals" to the privatised water industry because it would tell it that pollution was all right. For once, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is the green light for polluters.
The Minister is clearly telling us that the private water companies want to take on all the water industry's assets, but they want none of the liabilities. Yesterday, when we tried to ensure that the public's land assets would be protected, the Government voted down our amendment.
Earlier in our debates on the water industry, Opposition Members offered to support those parts of the Bill that could have been used to improve the environment. We offered to support and strengthen the National Rivers Authority to tackle pollution problems and to start to improve our environment. We said that if the Government had dropped part II of the Bill, we could have established the National Rivers Authority quickly. The Government were not interested in that. This amendment symbolises just what the Government are about—"forget standards, forget pollution problems, just make sure that the sale goes ahead."
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said that he hoped that the public would listen to our debate. The public have been listening to our debate, and that is why 79 per cent. of them are against water privatisation.

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: I will not give way.
Ministers may bully Conservative Members into the Lobby tonight, as they have done on other occasions, but they cannot bully the electorate. This Bill will be one of the nails in the Government's coffin.

Mr. Howard: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on their speeches. They exposed the fallacies that were advanced by the Opposition. Although I cannot entirely agree with the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about fluoridation, I can assure him that the monitoring arrangements that will be in place under the National Rivers Authority as a result of the Bill will be a substantial advance in pollution control, and I hope that he will derive a great deal of comfort from that.
We have heard from Opposition Members what we have heard throughout our proceedings on the Bill. They make their prepared speeches, and they will not listen to any of the arguments, however compelling they may be. No more compelling example of that could there be than the repeated assertion by practically every Opposition Member who has spoken in the debate that the effect of this amendment is to make it impossible for prosecutions to take place in the first 12 months after privatisation. That is wrong, untrue, and entirely inaccurate. It has no basis in the provisions contained in the amendments. We have demonstrated in great detail how mistaken that viewpoint was.
The extraordinary thing about the attitude of Opposition Members—it should not still amaze me, although it does—is that each of them has complained about the state of our water environment, but they have failed to recognise that the existing arrangements for our water environment are responsible for the fact that it is not as good as we would like it to be. The Opposition refrain is, "Things are dreadful as they are; let us keep them exactly as they are."
The most extraordinary claim of all was by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), who said that Opposition Members, in their attitude to this legislation, would work with environmental groups. The hon. Lady referred to 10 years ago. I invite the House to consider the position as it was 10 years ago when this Government came to office and when the Control of Pollution Act 1974 lay unimplemented by the Labour party. Were Labour Members working with environmental groups 10 years ago when that Act was unimplemented and when investment in sewerage services had been drastically cut by the Labour party? Were they working with environmental groups 10 years ago when the water authorities were in a hopelessly inhibited position, when operators and regulators were given deemed consents for their treatment works discharges? Were they working with environmental groups when they put those provisions in place?
On the performance of sewage treatment works, we did not know then what proportion failed to meet their consent standards. When it was in power, the Labour party had not even bothered to collect the information. Were Labour Members working with environmental groups when they kept that information from the public? They denied the public the information that they needed to find out what was happening with the pollution of our water environment, and the right of public prosecution was absolutely nowhere to be seen.
During those 10 years, substantial progress has been made in putting right those wrongs. There has been a substantial increase in investment and in the information that is made available to the public. The public are now able to use powers to bring private prosecutions which were not even contemplated when the Labour party was in

(4) Where the rights and liabilities in respect of any such consent are transferred to a water authority's successor company in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act and the conditions of that consent include one or more of the following, that is to say—

(a) a condition that requires that authority to take samples of any matter discharged;
(b) a condition that requires that authority to furnish any person with information about samples taken by that authority; or
(c) a condition that is contravened where there is a failure by more than a specified number of samples taken by that authority to satisfy specified requirements,

then any such condition as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above shall cease to have effect on the transfer date and any such condition as is mentioned in paragraph (c) above shall have effect on and after that date as if any samples taken on behalf of the Authority in exercise, at any time on or after that date, of a power conferred by this Act, but no other samples, were the samples falling to be taken into account for the purposes of that condition.

Read a Second time.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 13, leave out from `paragraph' and insert
`those paragraphs shall have effect on and after the transfer date in the same manner as before that date, except that any reference to samples taken by that authority shall be taken to mean samples taken by the National Rivers Authority insofar as it refers to samples taken after the transfer date.'.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 309.

Division No. 277]
[6.58


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Canavan, Dennis


Allason, Rupert
Cartwright, John


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Alton, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Anderson, Donald
Clay, Bob


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cohen, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Crowther, Stan


Beckett, Margaret
Cryer, Bob


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Blair, Tony
Dewar, Donald


Blunkett, David
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Douglas, Dick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Buckley, George J.
Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael

power. We shall take those advances further and we shall build on them. With this legislation, we shall provide the framework for the clean-up of our water environment that the whole nation is anxious to see.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 313 to 319 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 320, in page 356, line 48, at end insert—

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 320 agreed to.

It being after Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [3 July], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded by that hour.

Lords amendments Nos. 321 to 341 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Howard, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Roger King, Mr. Allen McKay and Mrs. Ann Taylor; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to: to be communicated to the Lords.

Antarctic Minerals Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities. The convention was adopted by consensus at Wellington on 2 June last year and was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom on 22 March. The Bill will prohibit exploration and mining development activities in Antarctica by British companies and nationals. It permits prospecting activities authorised by the United Kingdom Government or another contracting party to the convention. It enables the Secretary of State to grant licences for prospecting activities in accordance with the terms of the convention.
The Bill is technical and it seems unexceptionable. However, there are issues at stake in the Bill that are critical for the future of the world environment. It gives us an important opportunity to protect our environment. If we do not take that opportunity, we risk inflicting catastrophic damage on our planet. Those are truly apocalyptic assertions for a technical Bill. To explain and justify those assertions, I need to remind the House about the delicate situation in Antarctica.
Seven states—Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom—claim territorial sovereignty over sectors of Antarctica. Those so-called "claimant" states say that whatever minerals there may be in their respective Antarctic territories are theirs and theirs alone. Other states, most notably the United States, the Soviet Union, China, Japan, and the Federal Republic of Germany, do not recognise the sovereignty claims of the seven other states. Those non-claimant states say that they have a right to take minerals in the Antarctic wherever they may find them.
That difficult situation is further complicated by the fact that one sector in Antarctica is not claimed by any state. Another sector is claimed by three states: Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom.
As a result of that complex situation, over 30 years ago President Eisenhower issued an invitation to II other countries to come to Washington to negotiate a treaty on Antarctica. The background was increasing super-power tension in Antarctica and escalating disputes over sovereignty. Shots had actually been fired in the Antarctic.
The outcome of the Washington meeting was the Antarctic treaty, which had two achievements. First, it created out of Antarctica a "continent for science". Secondly, it provided a means for managing what had become literally the explosive issue of sovereignty. The means consisted of a provision, article IV, which simply set the issue of sovereignty aside or, more colloquially, article IV freezes the issue of sovereignty. To give that some chance of success, the treaty also demilitarised Antarctica


and provided for on-site inspection. Elegant and daring in its simplicity, the treaty has been described as, and has proved to be, one of the most effective of post-war treaties.
However, the Antarctic treaty said nothing about minerals. After many years of discussion, the treaty parties agreed on two points. First, they agreed that a total ban on mineral activity was simply not attainable and, secondly, because of disputes over sovereignty, a regime governing mineral activity had to be in place well before any mining activity or prospecting began. As far back as 1970, it was recognised that if at some stage important mineral resources were found, an unregulated and dangerous scramble could develop. That could obviously have a most damaging effect on the environment in Antarctica.

Sir Trevor Skeet: It is apparent that most of the minerals in Antarctica have not yet been discovered and it is not likely that mineral licences will be granted for the next 50 or 60 years, so why take the power now? Will this be comparable to the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981 when we wanted manganese nodules from the deep of the ocean and the House therefore took powers to cover our own territory?

Mr. Eggar: No mining activity of any kind, including prospecting, has yet taken place. The Bill permits only prospecting, and then in defined circumstances only. If, following negotiation of a protocol, it was to be decided that exploration and development should be permitted, the Government would return to the House with another Bill specifically covering those two areas. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall develop that theme later.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister ruling out any possibility of making that area off-limits for mining? Many hon. Members feel that any mining in that area is unacceptable. Has that consideration been entertained? Are the British Government to fall in line with the French and Australians and with their attitudes towards the Antarctic?

Mr. Eggar: The French have not yet made their position clear. The Australian Government have said that they will not sign the convention. I shall comment on that later. We have made it absolutely clear that all that this Bill does is to allow prospecting under certain defined conditions.

Mr. Banks: rose—

Mr. Eggar: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, because this is a complex area and I should like to explain our thinking. However, I shall, of course, give way again if the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with the answers.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Minister ensure that he tells the House exactly what happened in the discussions with the Australian Prime Minister, so that the House has a full account of those discussions? Will he also tell us whether this matter will be raised with the President of France shortly, when the Prime Minister meets him?

Mr. Banks: If there is prospecting, surely there will also be mining.

Mr. Eggar: In answer to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), if he will bear with me I shah be dealing with the Australian view later. I shall give way at that stage if he wishes to intervene.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: I wonder if the Minister would explain whether combustion gases from petrol and diesel oil used in prospecting and possible mining would not further damage the depleted ozone layer, and if there should be a volcanic eruption, sending sulphuric acid into the atmosphere, which happens every few years, would not that decimate the ozone layer? Will the Minister give a guarantee that no mining will be allowed until the moves to prevent further damage to the ozone layer have come into effect and time is allowed for the ozone layer to repair itself?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Lady has made several jumps from one complex issue to another. I repeat the assurance that I have already given—this Bill does not permit mining; it permits only prospecting—[Interruption.] That is an important division. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will bear with me.
As I have already said, the Antarctic treaty said nothing about minerals. It was recognised that we had to try to introduce a regime to govern future possible prospecting and mining activity before embarking on such activities. On five occasions in the 1970s, the possibility of a binding moratorium to prevent any minerals activity was discussed. On none of those occasions was there a consensus in favour of a binding moratorium.
As I have already said, there has so far not been any serious interest in exploiting minerals. However, the treaty partners were not prepared to rule out the possibility that minerals might one day be extracted from Antarctica under defined, environmentally sound conditions. It has been said that the convention, and in consequence this Bill, is some sort of miner's charter. Nothing could be further from the truth.
To demonstrate this, I want to go into some detail about the convention and the Bill. The convention provides for three stages of mineral activity: prospecting, exploration and development. Prospecting is aimed at identifying areas of mineral resource potential. It rules out deep dredging, excavations—that covers the point raised by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) —and drilling to depths of more than 25 m. In that context, it is important to realise that the ice cap in Antarctica is over one mile deep. Exploration is aimed at identifying and evaluating specific mineral resource occurrences or deposits. Development is what it says—the development of specific mineral resource deposits.
That distinction between prospecting on the one hand and exploration and development on the other is critical to the way the convention works. "Prospecting" is defined so as to ensure that the act of prospecting has no more effect on the environment than similar scientific research activity. Such research activity is already permitted and has been of immense value. It was, after all, the work by the British Antarctic Survey which identified the hole in the ozone layer. For that reason, prospecting is not subject to authorisation by the Commission or the other bodies which the convention will set up.
However, prospecting must be carried out in accordance with the convention. Prospecting bodies will have to comply with any relevant measures which the Commission may adopt in the future. It is the responsibility of the prospector's country to make sure that the prospector complies with the convention.
The convention naturally recognises that exploration and development involve far greater possible risks to the


environment. The convention sets out stringent environmental controls of exploration and development processes. No exploration or development can begin until all member states of the commission unanimously agree that it should do so. Each state party—they include all Antarctic treaty consultative parties—therefore effectively has a veto on exploration and development within Antarctica.

Mr. Elliot Morley: On the point about states having a veto on the agreement, I understand that Australia and France intend to use their veto. If that is the case, from what the Minister is saying, the agreement cannot proceed, so would it not be more sensible for the Government to decide not to proceed with this agreement but to argue for a different agreement, perhaps in the concept of a world park?

Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall deal with those arguments later. I must correct him on a matter of fact: France has not declared its position, although Australia has done so.
Moreover, the convention bans any exploration and commercial development until a separate protocol on liability has been negotiated. That protocol will set out detailed rules and procedures governing the operator's liability if damage should be caused to the environment. The liability protocol will build on the liability provisions applying to prospecting already in the convention. Negotiations on the protocol have not yet begun, but when they do they will probably last several years.
When those negotiations are satisfactorily completed, the Government intend to return to the House with another Bill which will, of course, be debated in the House. That Bill will implement the liability protocol and provide for exploration and development in accordance with the convention. But that is for the future. Tonight the House is not being asked to enact legislation enabling British operators to undertake mineral exploration and development in Antarctica.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Eggar: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way now. I shall give way later if he is not satisfied with the explanation by that stage.
The present Bill only covers prospecting. It actually prohibits for the first time any British national or company from undertaking any exploration or development activity. What is more, it bans all prospecting activity, except that which is in accordance with a licence issued by the Secretary of State. It provides that the Secretary of State shall not grant a prospecting licence unless he is satisfied that the activities he is asked to authorise will be consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom. Specifically, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the authorised activities would not cause

"(a) significant adverse effects on air and water quality;
(b) significant changes in atmospheric, terrestrial or marine environments;
(c) significant changes in the distribution, abundance or productivity of populations of species of fauna or flora;
(d) further jeopardy to endangered or threatened species or populations of such species; or

(e) degradation of, or substantial risk to, areas of special biological, scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilderness significance."

Neither can my right hon. and learned Friend issue a licence until he is satisfied that—and I quote again:

"(a) technology and procedures are available to provide for safe operations;
(b) there exists the capacity to monitor key environmental parameters and ecosystem components"

and so on.
So we are talking only about prospecting; and then we are only permitting prospecting under extremely stringent conditions—so stringent that the Government believe that, provided the convention enters into force, no Antarctic mineral prospecting activity could take place which would significantly or adversely affect the Antarctic environment.
I have now reached the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. The convention depends for its entry into force on 16 countries ratifying or acceding to it. The United States, the Soviet Union and the seven claimant states—including Australia—must be among those 16. As one of the claimants, it follows that our ratification of the convention is necessary.
That then is the position if the convention comes into force. I believe that the House will agree that the protection for the environment offered by the convention is very considerable. What would happen if the convention does not enter into force?
In 1977, the Antarctic treaty consultative parties decided that each of them should urge their nationals to
refrain from all exploration and exploitation of Antarctic mineral resources while making progress towards the timely adoption of an agreed regime concerning Antarctic mineral resource activities".
That 1977 voluntary moratorium was extended last year by the terms of the final act of the conference at which the Antarctic minerals convention was adopted.
The final act says:
The Meeting agreed that all States represented at the Meeting would urge their nationals and other States to refrain from Antarctic mineral resource activities as defined in the Convention pending its timely entry into force".
I want to underscore those words
pending its timely entry into force".
Therefore, the continued effectiveness of the voluntary moratorium on mining activity is conditional on the convention entering into force and upon it doing so in a timely manner. So if any of the key states were finally to rule out ratifying or acceding to the convention, that state would, by its actions, have destroyed the existing voluntary moratorium. That state would bear a severe responsibility for the consequences of its decision.
Those consequences are clear. At some stage, perhaps not so far in the future, some entity would go to Antarctica to find out whether Antarctica might contain mineral resources which could be exploited. Such prospecting, exploration and development would be entirely unregulated. There would be no control over that entity's effect on the environment. Mining would inevitably raise sensitive sovereignty issues and consequent dispute and possibly conflict. The Antarctic treaty system could begin to unravel. It was the thought of such mining activity that led to the negotiation of the convention in the first place.

Mr. James Wallace: One of the things that one regularly finds when talking to oil companies about their decision to invest in a particular place is that they look for what they believe is a stable


political regime. That is why they have been prepared to invest in the North sea. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, without any legal or licensing framework or without any security as to the political regime—for example, if there were questions of sovereignty hanging over it—those companies would be prepared to put at stake considerable investment?

Mr. Eggar: The point is that we do not know whether companies would be prepared to prospect. It is far better to take measures now on a worldwide co-ordinated scale so that, if they wish to go down there and prospect, they can do so with proper environmental safeguards. If we do not have those environmental safeguards, entities could go down there and cause unlimited damage.

Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman will let me continue, I shall be willing to give way later, but I must be allowed to develop this part of the argument.
One of the main concerns of both sides of the House is to ensure the protection of the Antarctic environment. The fulfilment of that aim requires that international harmony in the Antarctic be maintained. Indeed, our first priority must be to maintain that harmony. If the United Kingdom were not to ratify the convention, we would be contributing to future discord in the Antarctic and therefore jeopardising the protection of the Antarctic environment.
The House is aware—Opposition Members have already intervened to make the point—that the Australian Government have recently announced that they believe that there should never be any mineral resource activity in the Antarctic of any kind. The Australian Government want the Antarctic to be declared a wilderness park in which only scientific research and a small amount of tourism would be allowed.

Mr. George Foulkes: Toryism?

Mr. Eggar: Tourism.
The Australian Government aspire to a comprehensive Antarctic environmental protection convention that would ban all Antarctic mineral resource activities. As has already been said, as a claimant state, Australia's eventual ratification or accession is essential for the convention to enter into force.
The British Government are disappointed at Australia's decision, particularly since Australia played a major role in agreeing the convention. Despite the views put to us by the Australian Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, we believe that the Australians have not considered the possible consequences of their action and have not taken account of the possibilities offered by the convention to meet Australia's stated public objectives.
The Antarctic treaty has succeeded over the past 30 years because every member of that treaty system has exercised forbearance and no member has pushed its interest beyond the point where it can be tolerated by others. The treaty system has also depended on an implicit assumption that, once an agreement has been reached by consensus, all parties to that consensus will confirm and implement the agreement. The Australian move has gone against both of those tenets of the Antarctic treaty system.
The Australian case rests on an unsubstantiated assertion that Antarctic mineral resource activity is now

suddenly environmentally unacceptable. The idea of maintaining the Antarctic as an unsullied frozen paradise free of environmentally damaging mining activities is attractive. It is an easy political slogan, especially for hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West.
But the Australians cannot claim the moral high ground resulting from some sort of conversion on the road to Damascus, because the purpose of the convention is precisely to avoid environmental damage from mining in Antarctica. Perhaps Australia does not believe that rational objection to mineral activity will be effective when decisions come to be made under the convention. We find that puzzling, to say the least.

Dr. John Gilbert: Leaving aside the merits of what the Australians may or may not have said now or in the past, is it the case that, if the Australian Government refuse to ratify the convention, it will not come into effect?

Mr. Eggar: The Australian Government have said that they will not sign the convention, but they have not ruled out ratification or accession to the convention—

Dr. Gilbert: A technical difference.

Mr. Eggar: It is more than technical—it is an important difference. I want to explain why we believe the Australian decision is inappropriate and why, despite that decision, we are determined to press ahead with the Bill.
Australia's Antarctic partners have a right to ask Australia for its reasons for inflicting damage on the consensus machinery of the Antarctic treaty system. They have a right to ask Australia why it has taken a path that could result in a collapse of that treaty. What is more, the Australian alternative, a ban on all mineral activity, is simply unattainable. The route of a ban on mining activity was tried throughout the 1970s, but it proved impossible to reach an agreement on such a ban. The fact is that the convention is the only attainable means to ensure the protection of the Antarctic environment.
Even if an outright ban on mineral activity could be negotiated—we do not believe that it could—it would be extremely unlikely to work. In a world of increasing population and increasing pressures on a finite resource base, prospecting for minerals would continue. Instead of such prospecting being carried out openly within Antarctica and subject to proper control, as laid out in the convention, it would be done covertly under the guise of scientific research. No one would be able to use scientific research techniques, such as seismic investigation of the structure of the continental shelf of Antarctica, or conduct a geological investigation without those perfectly viable scientific research techniques raising questions as to whether they were prospecting activities in disguise.
At this stage, the world needs not a grand gesture, however superficially attractive it might be, but an example of how environmentally properly internationally negotiated sustainable development can be pursued. The Antarctic minerals convention is just such an example. In shorthand, what the convention says to mining entities is, "Yes, you can go to the Antarctic and, under strict environmental controls, you can find out whether the Antarctic has any minerals in it that might be worth exploiting. You should know, however, that if you think you have found anything, the primary and overriding


concern of the convention is to ensure the protection of the Antarctic environment." Any proposed activity that posed significant risk of damage to that environment would be stopped.

Mr. Morley: Earlier, the Minister read out a list of areas in which protection would operate, and it sounded fine. Who will control the conditions of the actual prospecting? Will we operate that control as a Government or as partners to the treaty? As the Minister said, the treaty says that such prospecting will not take place if it causes significant adverse effects to the environment, but how does one define what is significant? Surely that is an enormous loophole in the treaty.

Mr. Eggar: I have already outlined the procedures that must be followed to obtain a prospecting licence. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they are elaborate and, before the Secretary of State gives such a licence, he must be satisfied that all the procedures have been met. If we were to introduce a Bill that governed exploration and development following the successful negotiation of the liability protocol, such exploration and development would come under the terms of the convention and they will be controlled by the commission and the other various convention bodies set out in that convention.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked me whether the convention was effectively dead as a result of the Australian decision. We do not believe that that is the case, and there are three reasons why that should not happen. First, we do not accept that our Government should accept that a treaty system which is bound by the consensus rule should enable one state to dictate to the other treaty states. We believe that the consequences of the Australian decision must be debated and resolved in the same spirit of compromise and mutual accommodation which are the essential prerequisites if the Antarctic treaty system is to survive.
Secondly, we believe that the Australian decision is wrong in principle. We believe in the convention and we hope that the Australians will change their minds. Demonstrating our belief in the convention is the best way to proceed, and we intend to do so by giving ourselves the enabling powers to ratify that convention.
Thirdly, there are many other ways in which to protect the Antarctic environment. Such protection can be afforded by dealing directly with such issues as pollution from ships, waste disposal at Antarctic stations, the environmental effects of tourism and so on. Most important of all, however, a start should be made on the negotiation of the liability protocol called for by the minerals convention. The convention says that the rules and procedures developed in that protocol
shall be designed to enhance the protection of the Antarctic environment.
If the Australians are serious in their concern about the environment, they should be in there fighting for their particular points during the protocol negotiations.
If we fail to pass the Bill, we shall throw away the only practical means of regulating mining activity in the Antarctic. We shall ensure instead that issues of territorial sovereignty will arise in an unmanageable form. The Antarctic treaty system may well crumble and the

international harmony and co-operation that have been the hallmark of matters relating to Antarctica in the past 30 years will come to an end.
If we give the Bill a Second Reading tonight, we cannot of course thereby guarantee that the convention comes into force and that the possible adverse consequences will be avoided. Whether the convention comes into force will depend on others following our example. By passing the Bill, however, we shall give a necessary and important signal of our continuing faith in the Antarctic treaty system. Furthermore, it will be a signal that patient international negotiation is the way in which to preserve the environment in Antarctica—not grand and ill-thought-out gestures.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. George Foulkes: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to take account of major changes since the signing of the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Minerals Resource Activity (CRAMRA) including the Exxon Valdez disaster, increased public concern about ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect and the declaration of opposition to signing the Convention by the governments of Australia and France, and fails to make provision for Her Majesty's Government to join new negotiations for a comprehensive Environmental Protection Convention.
The amendment declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill for the stated reasons, but I should make it abundantly clear that the Opposition in no way imply any criticism of the excellent work undertaken by United Kingdom officials in negotiations to achieve the convention to which that Bill relates. We pay tribute to the diligence, patience and sincerity of them all. I hope that I will be excused if I pick out Dr. John Heap, an Edinburgh graduate—[Interruption.] Scottish Members will know why I choose him. In all seriousness, he has played a central role throughout the negotiations.

Mr. Simon Burns: rose—

Mr. Foulkes: I have hardly begun my speech.

Mr. Burns: I am sorry to intervene so early in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Does he agree that there has been a dramatic turnabout since 20 April, when the Bill had its Second Reading in another place? On that occasion the Opposition spokesman welcomed the Bill and said that he would assist it throughout its passage.

Mr. Foulkes: I was wrong to give way and the hon. Gentleman was right to apologise for intervening. I shall be dealing with the speech of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Cledwyn in a few moments.
Since the agreement was made in Wellington on 2 June last year, some dramatic events and substantial changes in public opinion must be taken into account in considering our approach to the Bill, the convention and to Antarctica in general. It should be noted that it is thanks to the Opposition that we are debating the issue on the Floor of the House at a reasonable hour rather than in the middle of the night. We arranged that because we wanted to acknowledge the importance of the changes.
The dramatic events and the changes in public opinion have influenced our thinking, and they should influence the Government's thinking as they have influenced the


thinking of other Governments—especially if we are to believe the Prime Minister, and she really has adopted the green mantle and suddenly discovered the importance of the environment and its protection. Even as early as Second Reading in another place, on a number of occasions my right hon. and noble Friend expressed his unease about the Bill and said that he would prefer all countries to agree to leave Antarctica alone and not to prospect and mine for minerals—[Interruption.] I am paraphrasing my right hon. and noble Friend's speech as the rules do not allow me to quote it.
It is naive in the extreme of the Minister to suggest that the Bill deals only with prospecting and that prospecting will not automatically lead to exploitation. Exploitation will follow prospecting as surely as night follows day. The Minister shakes his head, but he knows the inevitability of that happening. In the debate in another place it was not only my right hon. and noble Friend who expressed unease and reservations; other Peers did so, too. For example, Lord Buxton, who knows a thing or two about the Antarctic, said that he supported the Bill without enthusiasm and that his instincts and his sympathies were with those who wanted the Antarctic continent protected as a world park.
Even the Foreign Office's commentary said that the convention, as a compromise, was accepted with some reluctance. However, Dr. Drewry of the British Antarctic Survey, Dr. Heap, my noble Friend Lord Shackleton and the Minister all argue that it is the best that we can obtain and that if we do not have it there will be an unregulated rush for minerals. I understand and respect the argument that half a loaf is better than none, but I do not agree with it. We question whether the convention is as effective as the Minister and others have claimed. We also question whether the ideal is any longer unattainable.
I shall deal with our specific concerns about the convention and, therefore, the Bill. First, we are concerned about the difficulties of enforcement and the lack of effective sanctions. There is nothing in the Bill or in the convention to stop rogue countries colluding with their mining companies to flout the convention. A country might wish to encourage its mining companies to do that, and it is entirely possible under the convention.
The legal mechanisms to enforce the provisions of the convention are long and extremely cumbersome. Although it is clear how national companies will be regulated, it is not at all clear how multinational companies will be regulated. If the inspection, which is very important, is to be carried out by personnel of the British Antarctic Survey, that may have an adverse effect on its scientific work.
We are worried about the problems of enforcement. The semantic uncertainty that is characteristic of several key articles in the convention actually weakens it and could lead to endless confusion and dispute. For all those reasons we have doubts about the effectiveness and the enforceability of the convention.
The second area of equal concern is the imbalance of criteria in decision-making within the convention. The Foreign Office's commentary on the environmental aspects of the convention states:
The final decision is one that involves an overall balancing and judgment of the political and economic as well as the environmental aspects of the matter…It is therefore proper that such decisions should be taken in the relevant political forum.

We accept that but, given the Government's record of putting economic considerations before morality, let alone environmental protection, we are worried that the pressures from mining and other economic interests will invariably prevail.
Our third area of concern is the fragility of the Antarctic ecosystem, the irreversibility of damage and the uniqueness of Antarctica. None of those is properly taken into account. Paragraph 2 of article 8 states:
An operator shall be strictly liable for damage to the…ecosystems.
It says that the operator must clean up and take action to restore the status quo ante. How on this earth can an ecosystem be restored once it has been damaged? How can it be restored by the operator? He can clean up in many ways, but he cannot clean up that sort of damage. The operator has a number of other get outs; he can claim that the damage resulted from a natural disaster such as severe ice conditions, strong winds or seismic activity. There are loopholes galore.
We should listen carefully to Sir Peter Scott, who knows something about the Antarctic, who warned in a letter to The Times on 29 December 1986:
Damage to the fragile Antarctic wilderness from minerals operations, especially offshore oil exploitation"—
that is the particular interest in exploration—
would in many circumstances be irreversible and no level of protection could be stringent enough to guarantee there would be no damage.

Mr. Eggar: Everything that the hon. Gentleman has said refers to exploration and development, not to prospecting, which is the issue dealt with by the Bill. Does he agree that the liability protocol will cover his questions about exploration and development?

Mr. Foulkes: No, I do not accept that. First, what I have said is not connected just with exploitation and development. Some of it was connected with the original prospecting. As I said earlier, prospecting is the thin end of the wedge. We know that there will be a move on to development and exploitation. We know that in discussions of that protocol the pressure from the minerals lobby will be strong. That is not just the view of Peter Scott. The respected French scientist Jacques Cousteau agreed. He said:
the environmental consequences of industrial exploitation would be incalculable and irreversible.
He added:
This continent revealed its fragility due to the extreme simplicity of its ecosystems during a mission of our oceanographic vessel, the Calypso.
People who understand the area are worried about the kind of operation that will inevitably follow from the prospecting which, as the Minister says, is included in the Bill.
Fourthly, among our concerns is the reliance on consensus and unanimity, of which the Minister makes great play. But that is not as much of a safeguard as it appears and as the Minister claims. The requirement in the convention for the chairman to mediate in the case of a veto means that the pressure on the country exercising that veto will be intense. We have already seen that in another context with the Minister's pressure on the Australians today. We know from our experience of the EC the sort of pressure that can be brought to bear upon a country that exercises a veto. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) says, the Prime Minister, for all her bluster and her claims to be firm, has


given way on a number of occasions under such pressure. Moreover, the power of veto is likely to be used selectively. A nation refusing activities in one area will know that it might suffer the same fate when it wants to exploit in another. Therefore, it would be cautious about exercising a veto.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just witnessed the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary being consulted by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), then going to a Box to which we are not supposed to refer, being advised and coming back to give the information to the hon. Gentleman. Will the information from the Box behind you be made available to all Back-Bench Members? If not, can we be told why such information is being passed?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman says, but that is not a point of order for the Chair. There has been no breach of our Standing Orders.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), but the Minister needs all the information and advice that he can get from whatever quarter.
The convention begins to look more like a charter for mining companies to explore and exploit than a charter to protect the environment.
Since the convention was signed, significant developments have changed political, public and environmental perceptions. First, the public outrage—that is not too strong a word—at the oil spillages of the Exxon Valdez and, to a lesser extent, the Bahia Paraiso, has been dramatic. In the Exxon Valdez incident the scale and extent of environmental destruction overwhelmed the world community. The public came to realise that they had been lulled into a false sense of security and into believing the repeated assurances that an accident of such magnitude could never happen and that contingency clean-ups would work well and as planned.
The promised emergency response system failed completely and people round the world were shocked at the oil company's complacent and cavalier attitude towards the environmental catastrophe that it had brought about. The lessons for the Antarctic are there to be learnt from the Arctic disaster and from the damaging effect of the relatively small spillage of the Bahia Paraiso in the Antarctic itself.
Those lessons, together with increased awareness of environmental issues generally as well as other pressures, are resulting in second thoughts in other countries. In April 1989, the French Prime Minister, Mr. Rocard, said that France would not ratify the convention unless it contained stronger environmental safeguards, and President Mitterrand reaffirmed that on 13 June. I was surprised that the Minister seemed unaware of that today. Those statements are on the record, clear and unequivocal.
In May this year Australia announced it would not sign the convention and in a joint ministerial statement the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Minister of the Environment stated that Australia is

dedicated to the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment and in that context our strong commitment is that no mining at all—including oil drilling —should take place in and around the continent.
They said that it was both desirable and possible to seek stronger protection for the Antarctic environment than the minerals convention would provide. In place of the minerals convention, Australia proposes the development of a comprehensive environmental protection convention to be discussed at the 15th Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in Paris next October.
The Minister tried some scare tactics on us today and said that the moratorium on mineral prospecting would lapse if we did not go ahead with the minerals convention. It is inconceivable that the moratorium would not continue while a new convention was under negotiation. Of course, there would be a continued moratorium. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), one of the Democratic Members, said—[Interruption.] They keep changing their name which creates difficulties for all of us, but even more for them. He made a good point when he said that oil companies would be reluctant to go in while the legal title was unclear. The moratorium would continue and it is wrong for the Minister to adopt scare tactics to try to deflect us and the Australians from our aim.
The Australian proposal would ban all mining activity and establish an Antarctic wilderness park which would be developed within the framework of the Antarctic treaty system. It is important that it should be developed within that framework. With no disrespect to the United Nations, under whose auspices it has been proposed that the park should be developed, we, like the Australians, think that it would be easier and much more practical to develop it within the framework of the Antarctic treaty system.
The Minister tried to imply that that would stop legitimate scientific investigation. That is not the case. All legitimate scientific investigation would be possible. It is the aim of the Australians and those who support them to make sure that that would take place.
I also understand that India has come out in favour of that stance and that the Belgian foreign affairs committee has recommended that no Belgian company should participate in any commercial or industrial exploration of Antarctic mineral resources. That recommendation was approved by the Belgian Parliament last Friday. The Minister did not seem to know about that, but the Belgian Parliament is well ahead of us on that issue.
There is a groundswell of support behind the Australian initiative which Britain should join. The possibility of achieving a whole loaf rather than half a loaf is becoming a reality, and it will be even more likely if the United Kingdom's weight is behind such an endeavour.
It seemed likely that the convention on the regulation of Antarctic minerals resource activity would be ratified by sufficient parties, but many took the view, which we understand, that it should be accepted as the only feasible option and that we should concentrate on strengthening its environmental safeguards. But now the Australians and the French are not just signalling that they will use their veto on the minerals convention; they are leading the movement for an alternative environmental protection convention. That is a lead that we should follow. The Minister has not said, in response to numerous questions from my hon. Friends, what the alternative will be if the


Australians and the French refuse to sign the convention and if it is not ratified. It is neglectful and irresponsible of the Government not to provide an alternative.
Britain is rightly proud of its pioneering role in Antarctica. In the last century as well as in this century, we have contributed to the understanding of environmental dangers, and more recently British scientists discovered the hole in the ozone layer. We should be in the vanguard of environmental protection in that last remaining, relatively unpolluted part of the globe—rather than be dragged along behind.
The Australian Government, with their practical record and mining experience, are not taking the initiative out of any starry-eyed idealism but in the realisation that unless action is taken there is a danger of irreparably damaging our planet for future generations. I challenge Conservative Members to put concern for the environment before profit for the mining companies. The Bill is an acid test of the Government's supposed commitment to green issues. If they press ahead with it, they will have failed that acid test.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: As was said by my hon. Friend the Minister, the Antarctic treaty is a model of world co-operation. It has worked extremely well since 1961. It solved, for the time being, problems of territorial sovereignty, territorial integrity and territorial disputes. This evening, I shall discuss some of the convention's ramifications.
Antarctica is a marvellous laboratory for the study of global phenomena. Among them are the ozone layer—and let us not forget the British scientists who discovered the hole in the ozone layer—and global atmospheric warming. If the entire Antarctic ice cap melts, sea levels around the world will rise by 150 metres. Antarctica is a uniquely favourable site from which to study the magnetosphere, which is that part of the ionosphere most affected by solar storms and which has such a bad effect on radio communications.
Geological and geophysical investigations lead to a greater understanding of the refinement of plate tectonic processes that remain active. The southern ocean is of global importance in respect of its behaviour as a major sink, particularly for carbon dioxide, for which the estimated uptake is of the order of 30 per cent. of that discharged into the atmosphere.
In addition, there are biological studies into stocks of krill, fish and squid. I quote from the publication, "Antarctica 2000," which is the Natural Environment Research Council's strategy for Antarctic research. Section 9 on page 3 describes the Antarctic ice sheet:
The ice sheet presents unparalleled scope for the study of past climate and environmental conditions extending back to possibly one million years BP. Isotopic ratios of oxygen and hydrogen within the frozen water molecule are diagnostic of palaeotemperatures; acids and insoluble particulate matter indicate periods of volcanic activity; gas bubble pressures assist in estimating the former elevation of the ice sheet, whilst the included gas provides insight into the composition of the Earth's ancient atmosphere. The analysis of ice cores also traces the inexorable rise of CO2and other gases such as methane, nitrous oxides, other oxides of nitrogen and sulphur since pre-industrial times, some of which contribute to the greenhouse effect. In addition, heavy metals such as copper, lead, zinc and cadmium can be measured to levels of picograms per gram. Ice core chemistry of this sensitivity is thus able to monitor changes in the global background levels of these chemicals, which are transferred to Antarctica by atmospheric circulation.

In order to put some flesh on those bones, I may add that my brother worked for the British Antarctic Survey for five years and spent nearly three years on-station in Antarctica. His was an object lesson in the work done by the survey in measuring world pollution levels. The survey knows full well that, at a certain depth in the ice sheet, one can recover samples of snow that fell hundreds of years ago, and do so very precisely. In that way, one can identify the level of a particular pollutant 100 years ago and its level today. Antarctica is the only place in the world where it is possible to do that.
Following ratification of the Antarctic treaty in 1961, three additional legal instruments emerged, which together form the Antarctic treaty system. They are the agreed measures for the conservation of Antarctic flora and fauna of 1964; the conservation of Antarctic seals in 1972; and the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine-living resources. I mention them in detail because they were the forerunners of the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities, which is what all the fuss is about.
We have a strong voice in the British Antarctic Survey which, since 1961, has undertaken an integrated and coherent programme of first-class research. It is worth listening to the survey's views, but now I quote from a letter from Greenpeace. I thank Greenpeace for writing to me and appreciate the trouble that it has taken. The letter comes to me from Mr. Dougie Patel, Antarctica campaigner, who writes:
given the unresolved issue of sovereignty in Antarctica, very few if any operators would have risked investment in exploration and development without a clear legal system for licensing and some security for realising their investment.
That point has already been made, but it is complete nonsense. Any nation deciding to exploit Antarctica's world resources—if they are there to exploit—might decide that it would keep the oil for its own use. One can imagine the Soviet Union, for example, getting up the oil and taking it back to Russia, not for resale but for its own use. In that case, arguments about a "clear legal system" are nonsense, for who is to enforce such a system? Mr. Patel continues:
This Bill commits"—
note the use of the word "commits"—
the UK to accept future mineral exploitation of Antarctica by other nations, even in UK claimed territory".
The Bill does no such thing. Mr. Patel adds:
In effect Parliament is being asked to commit the UK to support an Antarctic mining regime without the opportunity for full debate on the future consequences of our ratification of the Convention.
That, too, is nonsense. I suspect that Mr. Patel has not read the explanatory and financial memorandum, which states:
The Bill prohibits any activities in Antarctica for, or for purposes connected with, the exploration or exploitation of mineral resources, except prospecting activities authorised by the United Kingdom Government or by another State which is party to the Convention.
In other words, Mr. Patel has made an assumption about the Bill, and has taken it to be the truth.
Mr. Patel goes on to comment on the position of Australia and France. On Australia, he says:
Prime Minister Bob Hawke has declared that his Government will not sign CRAMRA.
That is true so far: the Australians have not signed the convention, and I feel that we are entitled to ask what factors are at work there. Can the reason be the rise of the green factor in Australia, or perhaps the fact that that


nation has long exploited its own primary mineral resources? Can Australia be looking across the southern ocean towards Antarctica, hoping to apply its expertise there? As for the French, they can hardly talk; driving a new airstrip across Antarctica hardly presents a good example to the rest of the world.
Belgium currently has a Bill going through its Parliament which will make it illegal for any Belgian national to prospect for or exploit any minerals in Antarctica. Bully for Belgium, I say. How ridiculous: such a law would be completely unenforceable.
Finally, Mr. Patel says:
Or the UK can choose to open up a truly pristine wilderness for minerals mining. Any participation in a policy of burning more fossil fuels demonstrates that the UK Government has not yet made the commitment to develop, (or encourage others to develop) alternatives to fossil fuels and to mitigate the process of global warming.
I need only mention the two words "nuclear power", which, of course, will drive anyone from Greenpeace completely insane.
Why is there a need for the convention? It would decide in advance whether the risks are acceptable. The procedure gives the benefit of the doubt to the protection of the environment—otherwise, as my hon. Friend the Minister has said, there is the strong possibility of an unregulated scramble for the Antarctic's resources.
The importance of the convention is shown by the fact that the treaty's consultative parties took six years to reach agreement in Wellington on 2 June 1988. At present there is only a voluntary moratorium, and if agreement is not reached that may go by the board.
Let us consider the resources of the Antarctic. It must he remembered that only 1 or 2 per cent. of its land mass is above ice; most of it is covered by a sheet of ice up to 5 km deep. To the best of my knowledge, the technology is not available for the process of drilling through the ice to the rock beneath to be possible. It should also be borne in mind that the ice is constantly on the move.
The Americans say that they reckon that Antarctica's continental shelf has oil reserves amounting to 45 billion barrels. That is nonsense. The continental shelf is comparatively small; moreover, the formation of the continental ice sheet has meant that the sediments normally deposited to form oil and gas have not been produced. The American assessment is pure fantasy—nor are the technology and resources available for coal, copper or any other mineral to be obtained in such inimical conditions.
The Antarctic treaty has worked well, but it can continue to work only if it is supported by the consultative parties. My final word is that Australia and France should think twice about the effects that their refusal to ratify the convention will have on the future of the treaty.

Dr. John Gilbert: I am deeply suspicious of the way in which Her Majesty's Government have reached their own decision on this matter. As I understand it, they have had singularly little discussion with non-governmental organisations that are quite properly concerned about environmental matters. I am also told that the United Kingdom delegation in Auckland did not include a single representative from the Nature

Conservancy Council or any other non-governmental organisation—or, for that matter, from the Department of the Environment, although, given the way in which the Department is run nowadays, that might be a blessing. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Energy were represented throughout, as well as the Foreign Office. It is clear that there is a good deal going on about which the Minister has not come clean.
My suspicions are heightened by the Minister's statement that the Bill will regulate what goes on. He must know that—as has been made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and many others—any regime that permits prospecting must envisage the ultimate possibility of exploitation; otherwise there would be no point in prospecting.
The Minister is an amiable fellow, and I know that he is intelligent enough at least to understand that point. He says that the Bill permits prospecting, but he does not say how many people will be allowed to prospect. Will it be on a gold rush scale? The Minister also said that drilling would be permitted only down to 25 m, which he hoped would reassure us that things would not be too bad. Unfortunately, it appears that he has not even read clause 2 of his own Bill. Subsection (2) states:
'prospecting activities' includes field observations, geological, geochemical and geophysical investigations, the use of remote sensing techniques and the collection of samples, but does not include…drilling to depths exceeding 25 metres or such other depth as the Commission may determine".
There is nothing to say that the limit must be 25 m; the Commission may determine a limit of 50, 75 or 100 m on any day of the week.
The Minister said that a complete ban on mineral exploitation was impossible to achieve, and let it slip that it had been tried throughout the 1970s. For his information, in less than six months' time we shall be moving into the 1990s. In the 1970s, people had hardly heard of the ozone layer, and they certainly did not know that there were any holes in it. They were not as concerned about environmental matters then. The Prime Minister had not even heard of the Green party in 1970; she was still going around taking children's milk away from them.
It is absurd to pretend that public opinion throughout the world has not moved on since the 1970s. The Minister frowns and shakes his head. If he really believes that public opinion has not moved on since then, I do not know what world he has been living in. Public opinion—not only in this country but in the United States, western Europe and Japan—has moved on dramatically in the past decade on many different environmental issues, and I see no reason why Her Majesty's Government should not at least attempt to see whether a complete ban on mineral exploitation may not still be feasible.
Unlike the Minister, I am informed that the French Government's position on the convention is clear, but we shall see who turns out to be right in the event. I certainly endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson): I think that there is more than a little hypocrisy in the French Government's attitude, given that they are already conniving at the defiling of the Antarctic environment with the airstrip that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I am concerned about the phrase "significant adverse effects" which appears in the convention. Nowhere do I see it defined, and it is an extremely elastic phrase, which could


mean all things to all men. It would be helpful if the Minister could define it for us, as he has not done so yet —although, to be fair to him, he talked about the various categories of adverse effect.
In that connection, let me again echo the hon. Member for Walthamstow by quoting an article written last year by Miss Cassandra Phillips of World Wildlife Fund News. It states:
The operations would have to be based on the narrow coastal areas which are ice-free for part of the year, and which comprise only about 2 per cent. of the total land area. Some of these refuges are already overcrowded with scientific research stations, and they are also the areas used by the vast breeding colonies of penguins and seals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley drew attention to the possibility of oil spills. I am sure he does not believe that we shall see super-tankers cruising in that part of the world. But a nasty accident could occur with a small survey ship, or there could be the sort of accident we saw at Spitsbergen recently with a major cruise liner. Cruising activities are becoming more popular in that part of the world. Even without hitting another ship, a modern liner can run into an iceberg.
I do not believe that in the northern hemisphere there has been an accident giving rise to a severe pollution problem. In the southern hemisphere, however, the air and sea currents are different. There, any pollution is less likely to be dispersed, which is one reason why we have the ozone effect over the south pole rather than over the north pole. Any clean-up operations down there would be extremely difficult.
The Bill gives the Government powers over United Kingdom nationals and companies, but I am not sure where they can exercise those powers. Will they be constrained to exercise them purely in the territories claimed by the United Kingdom, or will they be able to roam all over the Antarctic seeking to enforce the provisions of this measure and of any licences granted by Her Majesty's Government?
Equally, if the convention comes into effect and other countries, such as Argentina and France, sign it and appoint inspectors, will they have inspectors running all over British Antarctic territories trying to enforce regulations against their citizens and nationals wherever they might be prospecting throughout the Antarctic territories?
What powers would our inspectors or the inspectors of any other signatory states have over companies not incorporated in any of those signatory states? It appears that there could be completely open hunting for a company that incorporated itself, for example, in Luxembourg or in some other tax haven and then engaged in prospecting—or any other activities for that matter—in that part of the world. The Bill is probably a model for the sort of legislation that other countries are being invited to pass. It seems that it will be powerless to deal with such a situation.
I endorse the views of the Australian Government. I do not want to see any prospecting or any mineral activity in the southern ocean. The Minister is being defeatist in saying that what was not possible in the 1970s cannot be attempted in the 1990s. Antarctica needs to be placed under United Nations trusteeship and the whole area—land, water and the continental shelf—should be policed by a United Nations agency.

Mr. Simon Burns: I do not want to ruin an illustrious future career on the Opposition Front Bench for the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), but I wish to extend to him my deepest sympathy for having to move, with such discomfiture, an amendment which shows that the Labour party is hoist on its own petard.
The Opposition amendment is, sadly, a false prospectus, for reasons that I will describe. Also, it is clear from the remarks that the hon. Gentleman made at the outset of his speech, when trying to garner support for the about-turn by the Labour party—praying in aid comments made in the other place—just how difficult his task was. But I give him credit for doing it with great bravado and a degree of panache.
I will describe the problems that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley had and how he tried to get round them. He quoted some remarks made by Lord Buxton of Alsa in the other place and said that the noble Lord had said on Second Reading on 20 April that he supported the Bill without enthusiasm. That was true, but the hon. Gentleman omitted to quote from the noble Lord's speech, or had failed to see, a point that the House might find illuminating. Discussing the Bill, Lord Buxton said:
I welcome the Bill because it probably provides the only hope"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 April 1989; Vol. 506, c.934]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he should not quote directly from the Official Report of the other place. Perhaps he can paraphrase the passage he has in mind.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to you for giving me that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not aware of the rule.
Lord Buxton welcomed the Bill because, he said, it was the best measure possible in the circumstances of human nature. That is different from suggesting that he did not like the Bill and that he supported it without enthusiasm. I agree that it was without enthusiasm, but that was because he was a realist and understood human nature.
The Labour Leader in the other House, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, also welcomed the Bill. In addition, he congratulated the Government and their officials on agreeing the convention and assured their Lordships' House that he would do all he could to assist the Bill to have a swift passage. We can appreciate from those remarks the problems that faced the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
That brings us to the Opposition amendment. To be charitable, one might say that it is littered with mistakes and inaccuracies because Labour Members were too quick in trying to get it tabled so as to cover their tracks. The amendment says:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to take account of major changes since the signing of the Convention".
"What a difference a day makes," in the words of the song. But what a difference an amendment makes in merely three months, since Lord Cledwyn promised his support for the Bill. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no signing of the convention. It was adopted on 2 June, but there has not been a signing. That is mistake number one.
Next, the amendment talks about taking


account of major changes…including the Exxon…disaster".
The Exxon disaster took place at Easter time this year, almost a month before Lord Cledwyn's promise of support for the Bill.
The amendment goes on to talk about
increased public concern about ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect".
The Prime Minister as long ago as September last year spoke of the important environmental issues and problems facing this country and the world and raised the whole problem of the ozone layer. She held a conference at No. 10 Downing street in March of this year, probably two months before Lord Cledwyn promised his support for the Bill.
The amendment goes on to talk about
opposition to signing the Convention by the governments of Australia and France".
We have discovered from the Minister's remarks tonight that France has not yet publicly declared its position, although Australia has declared its interest, so I congratulate the Opposition on getting right one out of six points in the amendment.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a statement by the French Prime Minister followed by a similar statement by the French President should be enough to convince him, if not the Minister, that it is the view of the French Government?

Mr. Burns: I understand the hon. Gentleman's problems. He is clutching at straws in an effort to restore the credibility of the Opposition's amendment. However, the Minister announced today that up to this moment the French have not made an announcement about their intentions. That assurance is good enough for me.
The Bill is of far greater significance than the number of hon. Members who are in the Chamber would suggest. Its ramifications are significant. They will affect the Antarctic and the rest of the world. It is important that the Bill should be passed so that the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities can be ratified. The Bill is a far-ranging environmental protection measure. It will prohibit mineral prospecting activities in Antarctica by British companies and nationals, apart from prospecting activities that are authorised by the United Kingdom Government. That displays a great degree of foresight.
Although interest in the desire economically to exploit minerals in the area is negligible at present, that may not always be the case. Although traces of a wide range of hard rock minerals have been found in Antarctica, none has been found in amounts that would merit serious commercial interest. However, what is not known is whether any hydrocarbon resources exist in economically interesting amounts. Without the protective measures that are provided for in the convention and the Bill, there could be a free-for-all that would greatly damage the environment and the ecological balance of the Antarctic. That is why the Bill displays great foresight and is an important insurance policy for the protection of the future of that region.
I welcome the fact that under article 3 of the convention no mineral resource activities may take place, except those specifically authorised. That procedure is further

strengthened under article 13 which prevents mineral resource activities in any area that is designated as a specially protected area or as a site of special scientific interest, or in any other area that is designated by the convention as a protected area because of its historic, ecological, environmental or other values. All the checks and balances on mineral resource activity are weighted in favour of environmental protection. I warmly welcome the fact that in every case the interests of the environment will be put first and will be given the benefit of the doubt, if any doubt exists. To my mind, that is an extremely important safeguard. It will have serious ramifications, in that effectively it will ensure the genuine environmental protection that all of us, I believe, passionately desire should be provided for the area.
I know that there is a school of thought that believes that there should be a total ban on mineral resource activities, or a turning of the Antarctic into a world park. In reality, neither proposition would be workable, even if the latter proposition were desirable. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) cared to listen instead of shouting from a sedentary position, he would have the benefit of the knowledge that I am about to impart to him.
Attempts to negotiate such a ban failed on five different occasions between 1972 and 1979. That is a powerful enough example of how a ban would not work. If time after time agreement cannot be reached, there is no point in continuing to hit one's head against a brick wall. The present convention took seven years of hard slog to negotiate. Failure to ratify it would lead to a dangerous and damaging free-for-all, which would leave the Antarctic at the mercy of irresponsible prospectors from all over the world who would not give a fig for the damage that they might do to the environment. They would be in the Antarctic for purely selfish reasons—to try to maximise the amount of money that they could get from successful mineral prospecting.
Similarly, I share the Government's view that to give the Antarctic a new designation as some sort of world park would not protect the environment. It must be borne in mind, as an argument against the creation of a world park, that the Antarctic treaty has worked effectively for over a quarter of a century. It would not be wise to go down a path that we do not know. That is what we would do if we adopted that course of action.
I congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have introduced the Bill. I trust and hope that the other nations that have an interest in the Antarctic will pass similar legislation so that the convention can be ratified as soon as possible, notwithstanding the problems that we have with Australia. The Bill will be an important step towards providing further protection for the environment of that region. It will be welcomed by all reasonable people, who see the need for such a measure.

Mr. James Wallace: The analysis given by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) of the relevant position of the Labour party in this House and the other place is of some passing interest, but for him to have to resort to the arguments that he used when he criticised the amendment moved by the hon.


Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) showed that his case is as thin as some parts of the ozone layer over the Antarctic.
The Minister said that this was a technical measure, but according to the arguments used in the debate, it is a technical measure of considerable significance. The point which is at the heart of the debate is the Government's assertion that the Bill relates only to prospecting. In a technical sense, that may be true. However, as the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) said so clearly, no company or nation will embark on prospecting just for the sake of prospecting: they will do so only if they can see an ultimate end in sight. Perhaps, many years from now, the House will be presented with yet another Bill to take us one step closer to that end, which is the development of Antarctica's mineral resources.
Even if we accept that the Bill is designed purely to allow for prospecting, those activities will lead to many onshore activities. Pollution will result from the disposal of waste. The number of prospecting activities is not spelled out. Those activities could proliferate. The Minister has not said anything about the extent of the prospecting activities and their pollution consequences.
Extensive use is made of drilling muds in the North sea. Drilling in Antarctica might involve similar materials, which could lead to a limited or even to a large amount of pollution.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does my hon. Friend not acknowledge that the temperature in the Antarctic is such that, almost inevitably, prospecting companies would have to use oil-based rather than water-based muds and that that would increase the pollution risk in ways that cannot now he envisaged?

Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend has considerable expertise in North sea oil matters. I accept his point, which the Minister did not address.
The question has been raised as to what would happen if there were no regulation. In some respects that is the best argument that has been presented, but it appeared to be something of a scare story. As I said in an earlier intervention, it is quite clear from the activities and the policies of oil companies that they look for areas of political stability before investing substantial sums of money on which they expect a return. I do not believe for one moment that they would invest vast sums of money in an area where they feared that there was not that stability and where there were arguments about sovereignty.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) said that the Soviet Union might set up a drilling base and take the oil back to the Soviet Union. Of course, a national Government are in a different position from a company, but the Soviet Union was not one of the countries that claimed territorial sovereignty in Antarctica, and it was an early signatory to the Antarctica treaty. Given its history of dealing with the area, it would be very loth to take a provocative stance in asserting mineral right claims. That argument was something of a red herring.
Enforcement is a very important issue. For some comparison, I looked at the eighth report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution published in 1981, which dealt with oil spillages at sea. It considered the problems of controlling oil pollution at sea. There had

been some suggestion that the North sea should be designated a special area to help enforcement procedures. In paragraph 7·83, the report reached this conclusion:
The problem is not the standards set…for discharges to European waters, but the possibility of enforcing them. More stringent requirements would not reduce the latter problem: indeed, the experience in the Mediterranean shows the limited value of more stringent requirements while waste disposal facilities in ports are lacking, and the ability to deter offenders is poor.
The report continued:
There are two aspects to this problem. The first, which we considered, Chapter VII, is the jurisdictional difficulty arising in dealing with vessels which for the most part travel outside territorial waters, and which are often not registered in the UK. The second, which we consider below, is the practical difficulties of detecting an offence and securing a successful prosecution.
I accept that there are some differences between mobile vessels and stations in Antarctica, but the main issue is the same: if it is impossible to try and enforce pollution control in the pond of the North sea, how in the world will we ever properly enforce it in the vast continent of Antarctica?
We are told that clause 8 makes provision for inspectors, so we can assume that the inspectors will be trying to enforce it. The paragraph of the explanatory and financial memorandum which deals with manpower states:
The Bill is unlikely to have a significant effect on public sector manpower. Depending on the number and timing of licence applications, it is anticipated that the necessary administration will be carried out by existing staff. Inspectors and observers will be appointed on an ad hoc basis but are unlikely to be needed for some years or in great numbers.
So they will not be appointed for some time, and when they are appointed it will be on an ad hoc basis. That does not appear to be a regime that would sensibly or effectively enforce proper environmental consideration.

Mr. Summerson: Is it not quite clear that an inspector will be appointed when a licence is granted?

Mr. Wallace: My point is clear from the explanatory notes. It is not envisaged that there will be a vast army of inspectors who will be appointed only on an ad hoc basis. Given the vast square miles of the Antarctic continent, it does not appear that that will be an effective means of enforcing environmental control.
What is meant by "significant damage"? The hon. Member for Walthamstow referred to what the French did last year in blasting a wildlife area to make a hard runway. As far as I am aware, little has been done in response to that. Even the present enforcement cannot be accepted as entirely satisfactory.
The protection of the environment is of paramount consideration in Antarctica. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that, as it has been undisturbed for so many years, it is almost an ideal place to test pollution and to make comparisons which are not possible in other parts of the world: the hole in the ozone layer was discovered by British scientists over Antarctica. But even with the best will in the world, we cannot exclude the possibility of an accident. Even a very tight regime enforcing control cannot exclude an accident. An Argentine tanker hit rocks near Palmer Station south of Cape Horn only last year and caused an oil spill. The Exxon Valdez caused tremendous damage to the ecosystem in the Arctic. Those risks cannot be excluded, even with a properly enforced environmental protection regime. Therefore, we should not take the risk of moving towards prospecting and development.
As for timing, in an intervention in the Minister's speech, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) pointed out that prospecting would not take place for a considerable time. That point is echoed in the explanatory memorandum reference to manpower. If it will not happen for a long time, what would be lost by withdrawing the Bill? If Australia does not sign the convention, the Bill will be defunct anyway. We have time to try to achieve something more worth while. I cannot accept that, because it was impossible to reach agreement in the 1970s, it will be impossible to reach agreement in the 1990s. The right hon. Member for Dudley, East expressed that far more clearly.
In 1972, the Minister was the chairman of the Cambridge university Conservative association. So much has happened since then. The following year there was great speculation as to whether the price of petrol would reach 50p a gallon. The world has changed enormously since then. We have become much more aware of the environmental conditions and the damage which man's activities can do to the atmosphere. That sensitivity has prompted the Australian Government to take the stand that they have, and the French Government to show signs of doing the same.
A comprehensive environmental protection policy would be far more easily achieved today than it was in the 1970s. We should make the effort. We should not allow the failures of the past to distract us from trying to achieve some success for the future. I do not believe that future generations will thank us if, having kept one part of our planet still relatively intact, we embarked upon a course of action that would ruin it.

Mr. Timothy Wood: I welcome the Bill. I share the fears about the environmental horrors that could result if we do not have controls and constraints. We must pay great attention to that part of the world which, fortunately, has been preserved largely intact without great damage to its systems. I share the Opposition's worries about possible developments but, unlike the Opposition and Greenpeace, I believe that the Bill's proposals and the convention are steps towards bringing, rather than reducing, control. Greenpeace is utopian in wishing for a quick agreement on a world environmental park, perhaps under the control of the United Nations. Over the past few years, we have had a treaty that has enabled reasonable control to be maintained. The Bill, which underlines the convention, strengthens that treaty's effects and we should support it for that reason.
It is all very well people saying that in an ideal world we should be able to get everyone everywhere to agree that there will be no exploitation of resources in Antarctica. In the difficult world of international relations, it is vital to achieve consensus, such as that achieved during the work on the convention. As one of my colleagues rightly said, during the 1970s there were several attempts to have a moratorium on any form of mineral exploitation. Those attempts failed. Six or seven years had to elapse before the convention was achieved.
I hope that our work does not stop and that we will proceed with Australia, France and other countries—in the hope that they are not being hypocritical—towards

achieving absolute bans on mineral extraction. That is my preference, but we have a convention now. We should take what agreement has been reached rather than cast it aside and say that we want a utopia that is not immediately realisable.
I have heard the comments about prospecting and the suggestion that people will not prospect until they see a possibility of exploitation, but that argument can be used both ways. Any major company that thought that there was a prospect of mineral exploitation would be optimistic if it thought that it could therefore justify spending substantial sums on prospecting. I do not think that there will be significant prospecting activity in Antarctica, although, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, it may be difficult to distinguish between prospecting and research, which is a legitimate activity. We could get into an enormous muddle if, while imposing a blanket ban on prospecting, we tried to inhibit legitimate research activities.
I am not concerned about the prospecting option that is left in the Bill, which can apply only with the permission of the United Kingdom Government. After all, unless there is an assurance that companies can develop the Antarctic prospecting possibilities, why should they go ahead? That opening avoids the complications that could arise from scientific research. Prospecting is not the threat to the Antarctic environment that the Opposition have suggested.
I welcome the Bill because it provides much-longed-for controls on mineral exploitation in the Antarctic. It is a major step towards preventing mineral exploitation and it should be welcomed by the House.

Mr. Elliot Morley: The House is trying to find the best way of protecting one of the last unspoilt wildernesses on the planet, so I am sorry that some hon. Members have tried to turn the debate into a knockabout. I accept that, if we can get only certain kinds of agreements, we should participate and try to get the best Bill that we can. That is why Labour peers in the other place participated, negotiated and tried to be constructive. However, it has become apparent that there is a distinct likelihood that the agreement could fail because some states may boycott it. If that is the case, it is reasonable for the Government to re-examine the matter and try to take a different view.
As one hon. Member has said, the ideal would be to protect the Antarctic from any mineral exploitation. I do not accept that we are talking only about investigation and that it is a low risk. When firms and various people go to the Antarctic and take samples and conduct tests, drilling and boring there will be disturbance, damage and risks. An oil spillage occurred last year from the Argentine ship that was carrying supplies to a scientific base. The worst damage was caused by the spillage of diesel fuel that it was carrying for generators on the base. If people begin to prospect in the Antarctic, we must supply them with materials. They are normally supplied by sea. Because of the Exxon incident, we know the risks, no matter how careful or regulated the movements are.
We do not have the same intense sunlight as that in the Antarctic, nor do we have the high rise and fall of tides or the same wind patterns. Spills of oil and various wastes, including human waste, do not biodegrade to the same


extent as they do in the northern hemisphere. They can be left there for years without changing. If we looked round the Antarctic hard enough, we could probably dig up tins of corned beef that were taken there by Captain Scott's expedition. They have not been broken down or degraded at all. They will lie there, almost for ever.
The Antarctic is a terribly fragile ecosystem. We do not fully understand the importance of the Antarctic to the well-being of the planet. For example, we do not understand how important it is to weather patterns or how it influences the rest of the hemisphere. We do not fully understand the movement of krill and plankton in Antarctic waters and their roles in the food chain throughout the southern or northern hemispheres. However, we know how important the Antarctic is to various species of birds and marine mammals, many of which are unique to the area.
To exploit the Antarctic we require sea ports that are ice-free for part of the year and some land on which to drill and work. Those very areas have most wildlife, such as penguin rookeries, sea bird colonies and seal breeding areas. We want to protect those areas.
I accept that there has been a genuine attempt to build in the best possible safeguards but, with the best will in the world, there will inevitably be accidents, pollution and environmental damage. There is no way that we can legislate for that.

Mr. Wood: I sympathise with a number of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but would it not be better to agree a convention and have legislation to back it up and then to proceed to further controls, rather than trying to achieve further controls while refusing to sign the convention?

Mr. Morley: I do not agree. Even if we agreed a convention, how would we impose the safeguards once firms started to go to the Antarctic to prospect? Firms will not go there and commit their money for nothing. It will be the thin end of the wedge—the beginning of the rape of Antarctica. Firms will go there not for the good of the environment but to get something out of it. If we are that desperate to find minerals to exploit, we are scraping the barrel. It would be better for the Government to encourage the multinationals to start looking for alternative means of energy replacement. Instead of putting their money into non-renewable sources, they should put it into research and development of renewable sources. That is the way forward, not opening up the Antarctic for exploitation.
It appears that we have reached a deadlock. We have talked about the difficulties in negotiating arrangements for a world park. That being so, what difficulties would there be in agreeing mineral exploitation in the British sector? The Government will have to negotiate with Argentina and Chile. That is hardly the basis for easy or successful negotiations to limit mineral exploitation. Surely it would be better to negotiate for a world park, and perhaps to hand the whole thing over to the United Nations and negotiate a convention to deal with all the conflicting demands. I hope that the Government will take a lead in arguing for the protection of Antarctica and a world park.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I apologise for not having been here for the first part of the Minister's speech, although I got the sense of his remarks from the second part of his speech.

Mr. Foot: The first half was better.

Mr. Corbyn: My right hon. Friend tells me that the first half was better.
I support the amendment. [Interruption.] I shall not rise to that piece of muddy old bait.
When history starts to examine the growth of concern about the environment in the 1970s and 1980s, people will surely ask, "Was it right and was it necessary to consider every piece of land and every corner of the earth as a place that could be exploited for minerals?" Perhaps people will say that this was the turning point, at which society as a whole began to realise that it could not go on exploiting every place on earth for oil, gas, coal, diamonds and uranium. Ultimately the process is self-defeating because of the damage that it causes to the environment. We are already beginning to realise that about the rain forests, and I hope that, as a matter of urgency, we shall realise it about Antarctica.
The Antarctic treaty represented a step forward because it meant a halt to the developments that might have taken place at the time. It was introduced because people recognised the difficulty of controlling any development in Antarctica. The tiny number of people in Antarctica already give rise to a serious pollution problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) pointed out, there are two sorts of climates that are not conducive to biodegradability. They are extreme desert conditions and extreme cold. Virtually intact mummified bodies have been found in the Sahara and the deserts of northern Chile after 1,000 or 2,000 years because the climate has been so stable. The problem in Antarctica is that human and other waste does not biodegrade as it does in more temperate climates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, during his expedition in 1957 Sir Vivian Fuchs reached Scott's various bases and opened and ate some tins of corned beef that had been exported in 1912. I do not know whether he suffered from salmonella or botulism, but I know that he found the food perfectly preserved.
There is considerable waste from the scientific bases. There is human waste, food waste and spilt diesel fuel, which cause enormous damage. We must recognise that any exploitation, whether in the form of survey work or exploration for possible mineral deposits, will create a problem. Only 2 per cent. of the land mass of the Antarctic is ice-free and that is the crucial area for breeding grounds of many birds and various migratory species, yet that is the very place where companies will seek to put their bases.
If the Bill goes through and if exploration licences are granted, there will be a serious environmental problem, which we must examine. I will give a simple example which I am sure that others have used. An oil spill took place in the Alaskan oilfield which caused the most enormous damage, not only because of delays in cleaning it up, but because of its remoteness, the extreme temperatures and the difficulties of access to that region. If an oil spill took place in the Antarctic, especially in the water as the ice cap was expanding, the oil could flow under the ice and quickly cover thousands of square miles. The oil might never go


away. Those who ask why it matters, as it would affect only a few fish here and there, should realise that whenever one species is destroyed, we are destroying part of the sustainable life of the earth. We should think more seriously about the Antarctic and not see it merely as a potential goldmine for various oil companies.
The Minister said that he wanted to preserve the Antarctic, that he did not want it to suffer environmental damage and that he was keen on environmental protection generally. However, he then said that that was why the exploitation of minerals in the Antarctic would be controlled by restricting the licences granted to oil companies. Surely to god, if a number of nations can get together, sign the Antarctic treaty and agree on various measures, they must also agree that any exploitation is dangerous and likely to cause pollution. Surely they should support the welcome change in the Australian Government's position to support for the idea of a world park. I hope that New Zealand and other countries will also support the Australian Government's idea. Why cannot we say that we recognise that the Antarctic is an important wilderness and that we support the idea of a world park? The idea that to control the exploitation there is a pragmatic protection of the world park is unconvincing. Pressure comes from the oil companies and the exploiters of mineral resources around the world, who are trying to get their hands on the Antarctic.
I hope that the House will support the Opposition amendment. If the Bill as drafted is given a Second Reading, we shall continue the arguments in Committee and I hope that I shall be a member of that Committee so that I shall be able to continue those arguments. We will continue to argue for the preservation of the Antarctic as a world park. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe that, at a later stage, the Antarctic could be handed over to an international agency, such as the United Nations, so that it does not become the property of a nation state, which could hand parts of it over to companies such as Exxon and BP, or any other oil or mining company. Mining companies and exploitation companies do not go to the Antarctic to preserve the environment. They may be environmentally conscious, but I always remember the amount that the Central Electricity Generating Board spent on publicity to show that it was preserving bees alongside a nuclear power station. I am grateful to it for defending the habitat of those bees, but appalled by the nuclear power station and the pollution that comes from it.

Mr. Burns: What pollution?

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman may wish to divert me, and I would be happy to be diverted, but I think that you would stop me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We must say that we do not support exploitation in the Antarctic. The Minister says that only exploration would be involved and that that is not necessarily exploitation, but why on earth would companies seek to find out how much coal, oil and minerals were there if they did not intend to mount an exploitation of those resources at a later stage?
Those who opposed the railway prospectors in the last century in north America and in this country because their

proposals would cross their land did so because they knew that, once a route had been worked out, somebody would try to build that line. That is why people such as myself oppose road building plans. We know that as soon as the plans are drawn up, those roads will inevitably be built. Exactly the same process is involved now in relation to the Antarctic. If assessments are made of the mineral wealth there, and if minerals are discovered, the pressure will be on to exploit that mineral wealth.
It is time that we started looking at this a little differently. We should recognise the value to us of the information that we have gained from the Antarctic, such as the information about the problems with the ozone layer that were discovered by the British Antarctic Survey team. We should also recognise that we cannot continue to exploit the world's natural resources at the rate that we are at the moment. We must recognise the principle of sustainable development. We need to devote resources to recycling and to renewable sources of energy. Resources must be devoted to sustaining life and sustaining development instead of having this mad grab to exploit what is one of the last great wilderness areas of the world because if we exploit that area in the way in which this proposal will inevitably lead to there will be a disaster.
An awful lot of people all around the world are watching what is going on, not in the debates in this House, but in debates taking place about the Antarctic as a whole. People are genuinely concerned. They recognise that the rate at which we are exploiting the resources of this planet is unsustainable and that in the end it will cause disasters of various sorts. People recognise that every time that we destroy a plant or animal species, we are destroying some sustainability in our own life system.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) pointed out, temperate and tropical zones can recover from ecological disasters to some extent, but the environment cannot recover in Arctic or Antarctic conditions. We are in danger of causing irreversible disasters in the Antarctic if we allow oil exploitation to go ahead.
I hope that the House will turn its attention to this problem tonight and that it will support the Opposition amendment. I hope that we will succeed in saying that we, too, support the principle of a world park in the Antarctic and that we shall do everything that we can to persuade other countries to do the same. I hope that for once we will put the needs of our environment before the profit motives of large numbers of mineral companies all around the world.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) spoke with sincerity and passion, but I hope that he will recognise that Opposition Members do not have a monopoly of concern about the environment or conservation. I hope that the entire House will agree that we are agreed on the end—on what we want the Antarctic to remain—and that we are divided only about the means.
It is not good enough to make grand unilateral gestures while ignoring the progress that has been based on quiet patient negotiations. I remind the hon. Member for Islington, North that those negotiations succeeded in producing the Antarctic treaty. However, no hon. Member has mentioned what it achieves in any detail. Article 1 of


the treaty dedicated the Antarctic to peaceful purposes only. Articles 1 and 5 demilitarised and denuclearised Antarctica. In articles 2 and 3 the signatories agreed not to press their conflicting views about territorial sovereignty in Antarctica and opened the way for freedom of scientific co-operation and research in Antarctica on a long-term basis. Article 9 provided that the essentially scientific and peaceful principles and objectives of the treaty were to be pursued at regular meetings.
The treaty was the result of years of patient negotiation. If we were to reject the Bill tonight and accepted the reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition, we would be placing in jeopardy the similar efforts that have been made to regulate mineral exploitation in Antarctica, and that would be a potential disaster for the environment.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although a step forward was made in the Antarctic treaty in terms of denuclearising Antarctica and making it a zone of peace, we are now saying, "Let us take another step and have no exploitation at all"? I and many of my hon. Friends believe that, if the Bill is passed in its current form, it will be a step backwards, because it will open the door to mineral exploitation of the Antarctic.

Mr. Leigh: I shall repeat what I said in my opening remarks. We are agreed on the ends, but were we to take the advice of the hon. Member for Islington, North to pursue unilateral action, I am convinced that, far from achieving his objective, we would put in jeopardy all that we have achieved after seven years of patient negotiations.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that, when opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister said that countries would refrain from mineral exploitation pending the timely entrance into this treaty. Therefore, were we unilaterally to reject that treaty and follow the path advocated by the hon. Member for Islington, North, we might put in jeopardy all that we have achieved, which has been much. For instance, the consulting parties under the Antarctic treaty negotiated the convention on Antarctic marine living resources, adopted in 1980, under which total allowable catches were allocated to countries wishing to fish in Antarctic waters. It is not good enough to say that all that we have achieved under the Antarctic treaty cannot be achieved under this convention.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) and for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) have made clear, it is important to put these matters into perspective and to recognise the enormous barriers that exist to the commercial exploitation of minerals in the Antarctic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow also made clear in his pertinent remarks, it is important to recognise that a tiny percentage of the Antarctic land mass is capable of exploitation. Let us put the matters into perspective and recognise the progress that has been made after years of patient negotiation. Let us recognise, too, the fact that only prospecting will be allowed.
I do not believe that any hon. Member has yet detailed exactly what prospecting would mean if the treaty were to be signed. Prospecting would mean
activities, including logistic support, aimed at identifying areas of mineral resource potential for possible exploitation and development, including geological, geochemical and geophysical investigations and field observations, the use of remote sensing techniques and collection of surface, seafloor and sub-ice samples. Such activities do not include dredging and excavations, except for the purpose of obtaining

small-scale samples, or drilling, except shallow drilling into rock and sediment to depths not exceeding 25 metres…'Exploration' means activities, including logistic support, aimed at identifying and evaluating specific mineral resource occurrences or deposits.
Therefore, prospecting would not include activities that could be said to be deleterious to the environment of Antarctica.
My hon. Friends have made it clear time and time again that, whatever we may want to achieve and whatever may be our ambitions for Antarctica, we must be realistic and conscious of what has been achieved and what has not been achieved in history. There are especially the five separate occasions in 1972, 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1979 when there was a failure to agree a moratorium on mineral exploitation.
I agree with Opposition Members that the proposal is not ideal, but politics, like international diplomacy, is the art of the possible. It would be a tragedy for Antarctica and for international co-operation, on which the future of Antarctica depends, if we took unilateral action and rejected the Bill.

Mr. Donald Anderson: This has been an important debate. Essentially the difference of opinion turns on the different judgments made by each side of the House on how the unique ecosystem of the Antarctic can best be preserved. We must decide whether it will be preserved by the Bill and the convention that it implements or by a bolder step, as now seems possible given the new demarche of the Australians and others.
This debate, valuable as it has been, would not have taken place in prime time had it not been for the Opposition and our concern for the environment. The Government appear to question who could criticise a carefully constructed compromise worked out over a number of years—an international convention that cannot be renegotiated. The convention, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) appeared to suggest, is the only show in town. The Government have urged, therefore, that we should support it.
The Government might argue that the issue was given a fair wind in the other place. In April my colleagues in the other place adopted a critical but accepting line to the Bill and it is reasonable to ask, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford has done, what has happened since then. The answer can be succinctly put by the Australian Foreign Minister, Senator Gareth Evans, who said:
We believe in short that what might have seemed impossible—or unobtainable—a few years ago, or maybe even a few months ago, has really now come within reach of the possible.
We are talking about a wholly different set of circumstances. Although in April it could plausibly be argued that the Bill was the only possibility, now we are in a different position.

Mr. Burns: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Third Reading debate in the other place was on 8 June. Then the Opposition spokesmen did not say they opposed the Bill; they gave it the same support as they had given it on 20 April.

Mr. Anderson: In response to his textual analysis, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that, on Third Reading in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition asked


about the new set of circumstances. In response Lord Glenarthur said that the Government were rather hesitant about what they called
an unexpected turn of events."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 June 1989; Vol. 508, c. 945.]
The Government appeared to accept that there was a new set of circumstances. During this debate the least we could have hoped for was that the Government would not simply plough along the same furrow ploughed in April, but would recognise those different circumstances.
In the other place, the Minister said that they would want to discuss this matter in depth, but thus far there is no suggestion that the Government are ready to have such a discussion. They are simply fighting yesterday's battle when the fighting ground has moved on.
There are important reasons why the unease about this matter must be articulated and many of them have been deployed with great competence tonight by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Fundamental to this debate is the recognition that our generation will be called to account by successor generations on the state of the planet that we leave. Can we look future generations in the eye and say proudly that the convention is the best possible means of protecting the vast natural wilderness of the Antarctic from commercial pressures? Other hon. Members have already dealt with its fragile ecosystem, the danger of irreversible damage and the pressures on that 2 per cent. of its land mass that is not covered by ice.
Our amendment refers to the Exxon Valdez disaster. Despite all the technical expertise and competence available to the United States, it still suffered a vast spillage in Alaska causing so much damage. Imagine how much greater the damage would be in Antarctica because of the difficulty caused by the slow rate of biodegradation. If prospecting within the Antarctic were intensified there could be such a spill from a tanker or from a supply ship. If oil drilling were permitted in those stormy seas it would be difficult to avoid leaks. There is always the human factor, as was shown so tragically in the Exxon Valdez incident.

Mr. Summerson: It will not be possible to drill for oil in those seas. Down in the Antarctic the wind gets up to the highest rate in the world, the water freezes as it is blown off the top of the waves and is frozen by the time that it hits an oil rig, temperatures are so low that metal shears if a hammer is dropped and icebergs the size of the Principality of Wales come floating by. There is simply no prospect of oil rigs in the southern ocean.

Mr. Anderson: I hear the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but the same arguments were deployed 20 years ago about the North sea. Technology advances and as we move into a scenario where the price of oil may increase substantially and resources become depleted, there could well be pressures to search for new areas, regardless of all the technical difficulties involved.
Other concerns include the Government's motives. Indeed, they set out their motives with brutal frankness during the debate in another place on 20 April. Lord Glenarthur said:
It has been our objective throughout the negotiation of the convention to ensure that the UK, as a claimant state in Antarctica, should have the largest possible share of any

benefits from minerals activity within the British Antarctic territory."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 April 1989; Vol. 506, c. 929.]
That is the clear motive. There is no primacy to environmental considerations; it is a narrow, national commercial interest, set out with brutal frankness, to ensure that when the carve-up comes Britain has its piece of cake.
The prospecting defined in the Bill still rather assumes that it will lead to something else. The Government are not involved in an academic exercise or a scientific exploration for the good of mankind. Clause 2(1) states that clause 1 does not apply to purposes connected with
the identification of suitable areas for the further exploration or the exploitation of mineral resources in this Act referred to as 'prospecting activities'".
It is clear that in that incremental process prospecting is considered to be but the start of it. We see that slippage easily, albeit with a possibility of a further debate if another convention is worked out—[Interruption.] There will be further pressures at that stage and it will be easy to move from one stage to another. It may be only prospecting now, but development is just further down the line.
It is said that prospecting means avoiding deep dredging and that there will be no drilling lower than 25 m. The whole problem of inspection has been set out by my hon. Friends. Essentially, the international authority sub-contracts to national Governments. It is difficult enough at local level for planning authorities to ensure that those to whom they give licences act within the ambit of those licences. Will countries have the motivation to ensure compliance with the licences? There is a real danger of collusion between national Governments and companies. For example, during the convention negotiations the parties refused to ban state subsidies for prospecting by the various companies. Do the countries have the resources adequately to monitor those activities?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) said, during negotiations, environmental considerations, certainly within the British negotiating team, were given a low priority. The Nature Conservancy Council was not part of the team, nor was it adequately consulted. The Department of Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry were part of the team, but the Department of the Environment was not. Again, that suggests that narrow commercial motives rather than environmental considerations were paramount for the Government.
How, then, would the Government seek to restrain the multinationals? Clause 4 gives the power to revoke, vary or suspend licences, but insufficient attention is given to monitoring and compliance with the licence permission. There is a real danger of collusion, particularly when Governments are searching greedily for resources.
We recognise the ultimate dangers—the danger that there could be a new Klondyke in Antarctica and the dangers of military strife between powers because of uncertainty over existing claims and the unwillingness of many countries to accept the claims made by the countries that were first in on the act. But because of the current price levels of relevant minerals or the state of technology, there is no suggestion that countries are about to embark on serious developments. Therefore, there is no pressure on Governments to proceed with the convention now.
An international agreement is necessary and we accept that such an agreement is best pursued within the Antarctic treaty structure, not within the United Nations. But why the Government's haste?
The key question that I leave with the Government is this. Who can deny that new circumstances have now arisen as a result of the Australian Government's decision? The Minister's answer on that point was weak. The Australian Government, which must give its assent, effectively has a power of veto. Therefore, we are back at the starting gate. The convention will not be operative as long as the Australian Government maintain that veto with the possibility of being joined by other countries such as France.
In response to those new circumstances, the Minister could only say that the treaty system was based on compromise and mutual concerns so that a veto was not contemplated. In fact, a veto exists. Given the Australians' strongly held position, there is no way in which between now and October they will say that they have reconsidered the matter and now think that their original position was correct. That is not possible given the Australian temperament and the practicalities.
The Minister's second point was that Australia was wrong in principle and that he hoped that it would change its mind. It will not do so and the Government had better be clear that they are now in an entirely different ball game.
As I said at the beginning, Senator Gareth Evans's statement that events have now changed means that the Government should formulate a new position in the new circumstances. Faced with a convention that could open the way to mining, it is surely time to reflect afresh and to prolong the moratorium which has stood the test of time since 1977. We need to negotiate from scratch. It is clear that Australia will not sign the treaty. It is surely a pipe dream to say, as the Minister did, that, although Australia may technically not sign, it may nevertheless join the treaty. The Foreign Office had better get that idea out of their minds, because Australia will maintain its opposition and the convention as drafted will not be ratified. Australia is a major claimant state, with 42 per cent. of Antarctica's land mass.
We urge the Government to accede to our reasonable amendment. There is no urgency, because we know that at the 15th Antarctica consultative meeting in October Australia will propose the development of a comprehensive environmental protection convention. That proposal will be on the table, and the British Government had better start working out their response to it now.
There is nothing dishonourable about having second thoughts in changed circumstances, particularly if they are a pragmatic response to new realities. In no case have the Government appeared to take the initiative in a matter of importance relating to the environment, despite the Prime Minister's brave words last September. Here is a chance for the Government pragmatically to respond to new circumstances and to accept the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Eggar: Concern has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need to protect Antarctica's environment. I welcome the nature of the debate, which generated sensible discussion about how best to achieve a common goal. I join the hon.

Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) in paying tribute to Dr. John Heap, who heads the polar regions section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As the hon. Gentleman said, Dr. Heap was involved in every stage of the six years of negotiations on the treaty, and has been involved in matters relating to Antarctica for more than 25 years. He is recognised throughout the world as a leading expert in matters relating to Antarctica, and his dedication to the cause of preserving its environment is matched by many officials in the other states that are parties to the Antarctic treaty. It is right that we should recognise the work that they have done on behalf of us all for a long time.
The convention is not the product of a piratical or exploitative design by a series of rapacious mining companies. Nor is it the case, as has been implied by many Opposition Members, that the non-governmental organisations or the Department of the Environment were not involved in the United Kingdom's preparations for negotiations on the convention. The non-governmental organisations were consulted, and the Department was involved.
The convention is a supreme example of foresight of the need to protect the Antarctic environment, which first became evident in the 1960s. It also recognises the unique fragility of the Antarctic environment and that Antarctica could easily fall prey to those who have no respect for its environment but regard the continent only in terms of its potential mineral riches.

Mr. Summerson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Prime Minister of Malaysia is on record as saying, "I have heard that there is gold at the south pole, and I want a part of it."

Mr. Eggar: I am aware of those reported remarks, but that is one reason why this country believes in continuing with the present Antarctic treaty system—an approach which I note is supported by the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, although not by a number of Opposition Back-Bench Members.
The convention would prevent mineral exploitation, except when it is agreed unanimously that such activity can proceed safely and without substantial risk to the environment. In short, the convention makes it very difficult to exploit Antarctica's mineral resources. There are those who say that it is biased. They are right: it is heavily biased in favour of protecting the Antarctic environment. The Opposition amendment shows no understanding of the objectives of the convention or, indeed, those of the Bill.
I agree with Opposition Members that the world is more concerned about environmental matters than it was even a year ago, but I think that they are making a fuss in a way that the Opposition in the Lords did not only a few weeks ago. It is the convention's primary objective to meet environmental concerns, including the desire to prevent disastrous environmental damage such as occurred in the Arctic from the accident involving the Exxon Valdez.
I have stressed that what we need in Antarctica is first-class scientific research such as has been carried out by the British Antarctic Survey. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), who pointed out graphically how critical that work is. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) also mentioned it. If we are to have first-class scientific


research in Antarctica, however, we need peace and harmony in the region, and only if the Bill is passed and the convention ratified will that essential peace be assured. If the Bill is not passed the convention will not come into force, and we shall enter uncharted areas of uncertainty, not only with the convention but with the Antarctic treaty system as a whole.
The Government are always prepared to consider new initiatives for the protection of the Antarctic environment, and in doing so we shall of course take account of the views and interests of all our Antarctic treaty partners. An important element in environmental protection is that any proposal for mineral activity must go through a rigorous four-stage process, in which each state will have a veto on exploration and development. In other words—this point has been overlooked by Opposition Members—any state will be able to stop exploration and development.
Opposition Members have expressed some scepticism about the veto mechanism. I could go through the elaborate four-stage process step by step, but unfortunately time does not permit that. Let me assure Opposition Members, however, that this was extremely difficult to negotiate. The four-stage mechanism allows any one party to the treaty to veto at any of the four stages: thus states that wish to stop exploration and development can do so on their own and in their own capacity, without fear of being pressurised by other states—or by own companies. That process rules out the risk of a particular country's colluding with its nationals or its national companies to despoil the Antarctic. Frankly, it is surprising that Opposition Members should use that argument when they know that, if the convention does not come into force, then, and only then, will it be possible for individual states to collude—the word that they have used—with their nationals and companies.
The safeguards do not end there. Any proposal to explore or develop must pass the sufficiency of information test. That is the key element in the convention's environmental protection armoury. No activity at those stages can take place unless enough information is available to allow informed judgments to be made on what its environmental consequences will be. That applies as much to prospecting as to exploration and development.
In relation to prospecting, the state sponsoring the activity must vouch for the adequacy of information available to it. The commission set up under the convention can challenge the sponsoring state in that area. In relation to exploration and development, the advisory committee is specifically required to say whether adequate information exists.
The right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), who is no longer in his place, asked about enforcement. Inspections by each state are possible anywhere in Antarctica. Any state can bring another state to the arbitration tribunal if it believes that that state has broken the rules. The arbitration tribunal can make urgent binding measures to protect the environment.
I assure the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who was concerned about the role of inspectors and who asked whether the British Antarctic Survey would act as inspectors, should that be necessary

from Britain's point of view, that that is not the case. It is the intention to appoint inspectors who are not associated with the BAS.
Many hon. Members have suggested that Antarctica should be designated as a world or wilderness park. My answer is that what matters is that activity in Antarctica should be in harmony with nature and should be carried out with due regard to the environmental consequences. The Antarctic treaty system has been committed to the protection of the Antarctic environment for nearly 30 years, long before Greenpeace came on to the scene.
The Government do not believe that sticking a label on the Antarctic would help to ensure its future. They do not believe that it is right to rule out the possibility that we might want to extract minerals at some time in the remote future. For those reasons, the Government believe that Antarctic environmental protection is best achieved by practical initiatives aimed at particular threats to nature.
It has been suggested that if the United Kingdom maintained its opposition to a complete ban on Antarctic mineral resource activity, we could find ourselves in the minority or even isolated. Our soundings of our partners in the treaty system do not support that assertion. The responses that we have had to specific inquiries show that the majority, including the United States, the Soviet Union, China, Brazil and seven other consultative parties, strongly support the entry into force of the convention. A minority, including France, have yet to make up their minds about signing the convention. No other countries have committed themselves to supporting the Australian position. Some have suggested that we should go for a ban now and reconsider mining later, when there is a need for Antarctic minerals. That is not a practical alternative. The convention bans all Antarctic mineral activity, except in accordance with its strict terms. Moreover, even if it were to be a practical alternative, we believe that it would be contrary to the interests of Antarctic environmental protection.
By passing the Bill we have an excellent opportunity to make real progress on the protection of the environment in Antarctica. This is the first piece of legislation to prohibit mineral exploration in Antarctica by British nationals and companies. The Government therefore strongly support the convention and intend to ratify it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 217.

Division No. 277]
[6.58


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Canavan, Dennis


Allason, Rupert
Cartwright, John


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Alton, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Anderson, Donald
Clay, Bob


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cohen, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Crowther, Stan


Beckett, Margaret
Cryer, Bob


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Blair, Tony
Dewar, Donald


Blunkett, David
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Douglas, Dick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Buckley, George J.
Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael




Foster, Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Foulkes, George
McCartney, Ian


Fraser, John
McFall, John


Galbraith, Sam
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Galloway, George
McKelvey, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
McLeish, Henry


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Maclennan, Robert


Godman, Dr Norman A.
McWilliam, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Madden, Max


Gordon, Mildred
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gould, Bryan
Marek, Dr John


Graham, Thomas
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maxton, John


Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Meale, Alan


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Michael, Alun


Heffer, Eric S.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Henderson, Doug
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Hinchliffe, David
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hood, Jimmy
Morgan, Rhodri


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morley, Elliott


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Howells, Geraint
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hoyle, Doug
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Murphy, Paul


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Nellist, Dave


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
O'Brien, William


Ingram, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Janner, Greville
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prescott, John


Kilfedder, James
Primarolo, Dawn


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kirkwood, Archy
Randall, Stuart


Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Richardson, Jo


Lewis, Terry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Livsey, Richard
Robertson, George


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rooker, Jeff


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAllion, John
Rowlands, Ted






Ruddock, Joan
Vaz, Keith


Sedgemore, Brian
Wall, Pat


Sheerman, Barry
Wallace, James


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walley, Joan


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N.


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Wilson, Brian


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Winterton, Nicholas


Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Steel, Rt Hon David
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, Jimmy


Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Strang, Gavin



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Allen Adams.


Turner, Dennis



NOES


Adley, Robert
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amos, Alan
Cope, Rt Hon John


Arbuthnot, James
Cormack, Patrick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Critchley, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Robert
Curry, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Devlin, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dunn, Bob


Benyon, W.
Dykes, Hugh


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eggar, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Emery, Sir Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Evennett, David


Body, Sir Richard
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fallon, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Favell, Tony


Boswell, Tim
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottom ley, Peter
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Forth, Eric


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brazier, Julian
Franks, Cecil


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
French, Douglas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fry, Peter


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gardiner, George


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gill, Christopher


Buck, Sir Antony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Burns, Simon
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Burt, Alistair
Goodlad, Alastair


Butcher, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Chris
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorst, John


Carrington, Matthew
Gow, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gregory, Conal


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Chope, Christopher
Grist, Ian


Churchill, Mr
Ground, Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grylls, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hague, William





Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Roger


Hanley, Jeremy
Monro, Sir Hector


Hannam, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hawkins, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mudd, David


Heddle, John
Neale, Gerrard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neubert, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Holt, Richard
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Norris, Steve


Howard, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Page, Richard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Paice, James


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Irvine, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irving, Charles
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jack, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Janman, Tim
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Price, Sir David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Raffan, Keith


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Redwood, John


Key, Robert
Renton, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Riddick, Graham


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knowles, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rowe, Andrew


Lang, Ian
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Latham, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lawrence, Ivan
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lilley, Peter
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCrindle, Robert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Squire, Robin


Maclean, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Lewis


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Maples, John
Stokes, Sir John


Marland, Paul
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Sumberg, David


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Summerson, Hugo


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thorne, Neil






Thornton, Malcolm
Watts, John


Thurnham, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wheeler, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Whitney, Ray


Tracey, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Tredinnick, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Trippier, David
Wilkinson, John


Trotter, Neville
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wolfson, Mark


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wood, Timothy


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Waldegrave, Hon William
Yeo, Tim


Walden, George
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)



Walters, Sir Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Ward, John
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Tony Durant.


Warren, Kenneth

Division No. 278]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Allen, Graham
Clay, Bob


Alton, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Anderson, Donald
Cohen, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cryer, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Alistair


Blunkett, David
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bradley, Keith
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dewar, Donald


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dixon, Don


Buckley, George J.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Galbraith, Sam






Galloway, George
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mullin, Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Murphy, Paul


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, William


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pendry, Tom


Hinchliffe, David
Pike, Peter L.


Howells, Geraint
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Doug
Prescott, John


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ingram, Adam
Robertson, George


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Ruddock, Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Charles
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp;F'bury)


Livsey, Richard
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steel, Rt Hon David


Loyden, Eddie
Steinberg, Gerry


McAllion, John
Strang, Gavin


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCartney, Ian
Vaz, Keith


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wall, Pat


McKelvey, William
Wallace, James


McWilliam, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Marek, Dr John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wilson, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Winnick, David


Maxton, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meale, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Michael, Alun
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp;Bute)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Morley, Elliott



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Allason, Rupert
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Carttiss, Michael


Amos, Alan
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, James
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Churchill, Mr


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Conway, Derek


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Benyon, W.
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Couchman, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cran, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boswell, Tim
Curry, David


Bottomley, Peter
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp;Spald'g)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowis, John
Day, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Devlin, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp;Cl't's)
Durant, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Eggar, Tim


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Evennett, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Favell, Tony


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Fishbum, John Dudley


Butcher, John
Fookes, Dame Janet


Butler, Chris
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)





Forth, Eric
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Norris, Steve


Franks, Cecil
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Freeman, Roger
Oppenheim, Phillip


French, Douglas
Page, Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Paice, James


Gill, Christopher
Patnick, Irvine


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gow, Ian
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Powell, William (Corby)


Gregory, Conal
Raffan, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Grist, Ian
Redwood, John


Ground, Patrick
Riddick, Graham


Hague, William
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rowe, Andrew


Haselhurst, Alan
Ryder, Richard


Hawkins, Christopher
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hayes, Jerry
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Heddle, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hind, Kenneth
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Holt, Richard
Shersby, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp;B'wd)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jack, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stern, Michael


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Kilfedder, James
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sumberg, David


Knapman, Roger
Summerson, Hugo


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knowles, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lang, Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Latham, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thornton, Malcolm


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Thurnham, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Maclean, David
Trippier, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Malins, Humfrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mans, Keith
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Maples, John
Waller, Gary


Marland, Paul
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Warren, Kenneth


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Watts, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wells, Bowen


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wheeler, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Miller, Sir Hal
Widdecombe, Ann


Mills, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wilshire, David


Mitchell, Sir David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Moate, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas


Monro, Sir Hector
Wolfson, Mark


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wood, Timothy


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Moss, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Younger, Rt Hon George


Mudd, David



Neale, Gerrard
Tellers for the Noes:


Nelson, Anthony
Mr. David Lightbown and


Neubert, Michael
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Nicholls, Patrick

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion and the Road Traffic (Drivers Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]

ANTARCTIC MINERALS BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Ordered,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Antarctic Minerals Bill [Lords], ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are obliged to pay to any person under or by virtue of the Convention of the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities;
(b) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the Act; and
(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Maclean.]

ANTARCTIC MINERALS BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]

Ordered,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Antarctic Minerals Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the inclusion in licences granted under the Act of conditions requiring the rendering of payments to the Secretary of State; and
(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Maclean.]

Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26 June], That the clause (Sight testing), proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be read a Second time.

Which clause was:

New Clause 1

SIGHT TESTING

'It shall be a condition of the validity of any driving licence that the eyesight of the holder has been tested within a period and to a standard which shall be prescribed by a statutory instrument subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.'.

Question again proposed.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) asked whether there should be a free test. There is a free test, which is given not just once every so often—every driver has the duty to make sure that he can read a number plate at about 70 ft. For certain characters, the distance is 75 ft and for others 67ft. If the hon. Gentleman can read, from one end of the Chamber to the other, the pseudo number plate which I am holding up, his eyesight is good enough to pass the test. The medical profession say that that is correct.
The hon. Gentleman thought that, for some reason, I was trying to stay in the Prime Minister's favour. If he thinks that, he must be the only person to do so on this issue. What matters is cutting casualties. His speech did nothing to do that, but would mislead people. I ask the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I must respond to the Minister's point. He said that it is a free test, but it is free only at the beginning of one's driving experience. People may drive for 40 or 50 years without having to take another test. Their eyesight can seriously deteriorate in that time.

Mr. Bottomley: It might help the House if I repeat what I said earlier. Drivers should be able at all times to read a number plate at the distance that I quoted. It is not once in a lifetime: it is every time that someone is driving. It might help the House if the hon. Gentleman either reads the report in Hansard, which will make matters clear to him, or takes this pseudo number plate outside the Chamber and keeps walking, as the House has already heard him.

Mr. Cohen: I heard the Minister very clearly indeed. However, some people who passed their test a while ago will not be able to read that number plate, and there is no requirement for them to take another test. As the Government have imposed charges, those people are likely to be discouraged from taking another test, and that is likely to lead to more accidents.
I will not repeat what I said in the debate last week. The points are clear. The Government are well behind the rest of Europe in respect of driving standards. The Minister is right. This matter is not about his status; it is about accidents. The Government are taking a reckless attitude.
They will realise that they must introduce a higher standard of medical fitness for drivers, including eyesight tests.

Mr. Roger Moate: Before the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) withdraws his proposal, I, too, endorse what he has said. There will come a time when the country will require more stringent eyesight tests for motorists. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition that compulsory testing should be introduced. I hope that my hon. Friend, in his influential and powerful position as Minister for Roads and Traffic, will encourage voluntary and more stringent eyesight testing, particularly by insurance companies. I do not agree with imposing great bureaucratic controls. Through insurance contracts and the driver licensing regulations, we have enough sanctions to bring to bear on individual motorists to ensure that they have regular eyesight tests. It is not the hon. Gentleman but the Department of Transport which has a blind spot on eyesight testing. There seems to be ample evidence—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this an intervention or a speech?

Mr Moate: I hoped that it was a speech, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for clarifying the position. I will do all that I can to make sure that the medical contribution to road casualties is continually monitored and that we re-emphasise to all drivers the need to make sure that they meet the correct medical test. We will do all that we can to make the roads safer in that way.

Mr. Moate: I am grateful for that intervention. I hope that it is in order to make a speech on this important subject.

Mr. Speaker: Of course it is in order. I was slightly confused because the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, "Before the hon. Gentleman sits down." I thought that he was making an intervention.

Mr. Moate: I said, "Before the hon. Member for Leyton withdraws his proposal."
I certainly do not wish to detain the House, but I wish to record a matter of great importance. Although the hon. Gentleman speaks at enormous length, he speaks persuasively. [Interruption.] He always persuades me that a 10-minute limit for speeches is a good idea. On this occasion, his point is valid. There is a strong case for regular eyesight testing for motorists. It would be helpful for motorists, and it need not be any imposition on them. It would help to reduce the number of casualties and accidents on the road.
I should like my hon. Friend to bring pressure to bear on insurance companies to remind motorists of their obligation under their contracts of insurance to seek eyesight tests at every renewal. That would be to the benefit of the community and would ultimately help to reduce casualties on the road. To that extent, the hon. Member for Leyton has assisted the House by introducing the new clause and I am grateful to him for speaking so briefly on this occasion.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I was delayed in getting two computer disks from my office, so unfortunately I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) who seems to be running

from the Chamber. I do not know what has come over my hon. Friend, but he seems to be running around the building at the moment.
Last time we debated this matter, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) made some strange manoeuvres to prevent further discussion. At that time, the Minister had failed to explain why he was not prepared to require eyesight tests. To anyone remotely concerned about road safety—the Minister claims to be very concerned about it—it is patently obvious that compulsory eyesight testing is the answer. I hope that now that the Minister has had a little time to think matters over as a result of the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Watford, who gave him an early night, he will tell us that he is prepared to introduce regular eyesight testing for motorists.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: For the benefit of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), I repeat what I said earlier. There is a continual requirement that all motorists should be able to meet the eyesight test. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will see the specification.
Question put and negatived.

Clause 1

ABOLITION OF SPECIAL LICENCES FOR DRIVING HGVs AND PSVs

Amendments made: No. 7, in line 22 after 'drive', insert '
or a goods vehicle of any class or, as the case may be, a passenger-carrying vehicle of any class prescribed for the purposes of this subsection'.

No. 8, in line 35, at end insert
'and the reference to prescribed classes of goods vehicles or passenger-carrying vehicles is a reference to classes of goods vehicles or passenger-carrying vehicles (within the meaning of the 1988 Act) prescribed under that paragraph.' .—[Mr. Peter Bottomley.]

Clause 10

OPERATORS' LICENCES

Ms. Joan Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 14, line 9 after 'danger', insert 'or nuisance'.
The Bill as drafted enables the Secretary of State to amend an operator's licence without the consent of the licence holder if a change is needed to prevent a danger to the public. The amendment would extend the power of the Secretary of State to amend the licence to cover circumstances in which the operation of a driver information system is causing a nuisance.
Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, the Opposition have voiced the concerns of local highway authorities that the introduction of Autoguide could generate two types of problem as a result of traffic being directed along unsuitable roads.—first, road safety problems and, secondly, amenity and traffic management problems, including noise and congestion. Ministers have consistently argued that it is unlikely that such problems will arise and that the pilot scheme planned for London will provide an opportunity to iron out any problems. That approach ignores the fact that, should the pilot show that Autoguide results in nuisance problems for certain communities, the Bill—which will then be an Act—will


contain no provision under which action can be taken by the Secretary of State, except on road safety grounds alone.
The amendment would give no extra powers to highway authorities. It does not impose any burdens on Autoguide operators. It would simply empower the Secretary of State to act if amenity or traffic problems arose as a result of the introduction of Autoguide, as we suspect they may.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House is grateful to the hon. Lady for the way in which she introduced the amendment. For those in a legal frame of mind who read the amendment, she has made it clear that we are talking about loss of amenity, rather than nuisance, which has a particular legal meaning. As the House knows, the Government's view is that driver information systems, such as Autoguide, should be operated and financed by the private sector. Development will require heavy capital investment. Operators will be prepared to go ahead with such schemes only if they can be confident that, once awarded, a licence cannot be amended by the Secretary of State without the operator's consent. That approach is reflected generally in part II.
Clause 10(6) breaches that principle in one respect. It enables the Secretary of State, without the consent of the licence holder, to attach new conditions if they are designed to prevent danger to the public. The House will take the view that in such circumstances there should be a clear and overriding need to amend a licence.
However, the amendment would go further. It would provide that the Secretary of State could unilaterally alter a licence to prevent a nuisance, in the common sense view, which would leave the operator in uncertainty about the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might use that power. The effect would probably be to deter operators from seeking licences and consequently to the loss of the benefit of driver information systems such as Autoguide. In asking the House not to accept the amendment, I must make it plain that I cannot envisage circumstances in which there would be a serious loss of amenity, or other unbearable or undesirable conditions, where there was not also a diminution of safety. For all practical purposes, the power in clause 10(6) will probably meet the hon. Lady's aim.
I ask the House not to accept the amendment. The hon. Lady has made a serious point, but her proposal can be encompassed within the provisions on safety. I doubt whether noise would ever be a problem on its own. Noise would be produced by a lot of traffic using an unsuitable road and that would have an effect on safety, too. If there were no pedestrians at all, the road would probably be a motorway, in which case it would probably be outside a city or town.

Ms. Ruddock: I thank the Minister for his comments. I know that highway authorities will take note of them and I hope that they will accept that he is, in a sense, making the offer that if there is a nuisance of the sort that we have described, they will be able to take the matter up on the road safety grounds specified in the Bill. That is extremely important and goes a small way to meeting my points. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 15, line 1, leave out
'may be required to be furnished to the Secretary of State under subsection (8)(f) above'
and insert
'shall be disclosed by the operator to any person'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 2, in clause 11, page 15, line 13, at end insert
'or
(c) driver information has been used, collected, obtained or disclosed in a way that is unrelated to the operation of the system.'.

Mr. Cohen: I will take a little longer on these amendments. The implication of amendment No. 2 is that the abuse of driver information can be punished by loss of licence and the acquisition of a criminal record by the company, such as Autoguide. It will place a limitation on cavalier operators who could be tempted to make a fast buck by using driver information for other purposes. Amendment No. 2 will force operators to be careful about how they use driver information and any misuse of it could be a breach of the conditions for obtaining an operator's licence. Amendment No. 2 will allow the licence to be revoked if there is misuse.
Amendment No. 2 will also place an onus on the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister to specify how information is to be used, collected, obtained or disclosed in relation to the driver information system, probably in the licence granted under clause 10. The Secretary of State should give guidance to operators in that respect. Unlike the amendment that I proposed to clause 8 in Committee, which the Minister did not like because it forbade absolutely the use of driver information for any other purpose, amendment No. 2 is a halfway house to those objections.
Clause 10(6), for example, gives the Secretary of State flexibility to amend the terms and conditions associated with the granting of the licence and so provides guidance regarding the acceptable use, disclosure, collection and obtaining of information, so that they are related to the operaton of the driver information system in the licence. Amendment No. 2 would constrain such uses, disclosures, collection and obtaining so that they would be related to the operation of the system, rather than directly "relevant", which was the key word of my previous amendment. As such, it is a happy compromise and one which any reasonable Minister should be more than happy to accept.
I remind the Minister of the significance of the written answer that he gave me on 21 April in column 305 of volume 151 of Hansard, when he stated that the disclosure of personal data from Autoguide will be subject to a non-disclosure exemption under the Data Protection Act 1984. In my assessment, the legal aspect of that is positively dangerous, especially as we are dealing with a computer system that could be developed to trace the movements of individuals by tracing from and to where they drive.
10.30 pm
"Non-disclosure" is an awful piece of jargon but it means, first, that there is no restriction on the disclosure of information held in manual files. Non-automated


information associated with autoguide is, by definition, not covered by the Data Protection Act and can therefore be used and disclosed freely.
Secondly, it means that the disclosure of personal information from Autoguide is not subject to the requirements of the third data protection principle—that it should not be used or disclosed in any manner that is incompatible with its purpose.
Thirdly, disclosures of personal information from Autoguide need not be registered with the data protection registrar. Fourthly, Autoguide information is not subject to the enforcement powers of the registrar in relation to all eight of the data protection principles.
In Committee, the Minister placed great store by the Data Protection Act. However, its provisions are insufficient in respect of information from Autoguide which could be used for a purpose other than for road safety and good traffic management, which the Minister assured us on Second Reading was its sole purpose. It can be used for all sorts of other purposes. Amendment No. 2 goes some way to ensuring that information held in a driver information system cannot be abused quite so easily.
Amendment No. 1 states that Autoguide information should not be disclosed
by the operator to any person".
The amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State, and no other person, can require information from a driver information system, such as Autoguide, in a form that can identify drivers and owners. At the moment, the Secretary of State for Transport has accepted that he would stop himself infringing privacy, but he has left it open to all other Ministers and organisations outside his control, such as the police and the security services, to be able to require the information and thus infringe privacy.
To make absolute the details of individuals whose details are recorded on driver information systems, my amendment extends the protections that the Secretary of State has given to himself to all other Secretaries of State and all governmental and other organisations. The arguments that the Secretary of State has applied to himself should surely apply to those other individuals and bodies.
I remind the Minister of his exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) in Committee when she asked how an individual would know that the information had been passed on. The Minister replied:
It will not be passed on to the Secretary of State. That is what the Bill says."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 16 May 1989; c. 51.]
From that exchange, it appears that it is possible for other Secretaries of State or Government bodies to obtain information from Autoguide in a form that identifies individuals. The powers granted under clause 10(8)(g) expressly authorise the Secretary of State to allow other persons to inspect records and make copies. Those records could include the owners or drivers of vehicles who pass an Autoguide detector at the start of a political demonstration. Such information might be passed on.
Such authoritarian behaviour was referred to in Committee by both my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who said that he was held on the stolen and suspect vehicle index of the police national computer during the miners' strike, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford, who said that she

was followed by Security Service agents because of her effective work with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. That will be encouraged by unrestricted access to Autoguide information.

Mr. Corbyn: In Committee there was substantial discussion about the use of such information. It was revealed that, during the miners' strike, the stolen vehicles index was used to trace cars owned by members of the National Union of Mineworkers and those who supported them on picket line duties. There is no guarantee that the Autoguide system will not be used merely to update such records and extend that information. Does my hon. Friend not think it an outrage that, rather than trying to protect civil liberties, the Minister is giving power to the Big Brother state to examine the activities of people on legitimate and legal protest?

Mr. Cohen: That is exactly my point, and that is the reason for the amendment. We must protect civil liberties and learn the lessons of the Big Brother state during the miners' strike. We are seeing increasing encroachments on civil liberties. We must stop new technology, such as the Autoguide system, enabling that to be carried a stage further by an authoritarian Government, which this Government have shown all the hallmarks of being.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not know how much longer the hon. Gentleman is going to take us down this line, but I had the impression that when he went on demonstrations he wanted it to be known that he was there rather than be anonymous. If he went on a demonstration, I did not know that he went by car. If he was going to a demonstration by car, I do not know that he would want to sign up with the commercial Autoguide system to tell him which way to go. It seems that he is taking us into the realms of fantasy. If he brought us back to his amendments, we could try to answer his points and the House could decide whether he is right or wrong.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister treats these matters flippantly, but they are encroachments on civil liberties in a very big way. I shall show the House how such encroachments are occurring. There is the Autoguide system, whereby people's number plates can be checked and it can be discovered where they have travelled to and from; the ticket barriers on the Underground have facilities to read the season ticket strips to record people's movements; and the Home Office is developing a system called "Wizard", which is a facial recognition system that will photograph drivers and people on the move.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Have a shave.

Mr. Cohen: Yes, it will recognise my beard, and report where I have moved to and from.
In a recent answer to me, the Minister said that travel agents and airlines will have to hand over information on people who book with them, if matters of public order or national security are involved. Those are creeping infringements of our vital civil liberty—the freedom of movement.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my hon. Friend tell us whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Autoguide or the new Wizard system will be used when the judges go out on strike again? If the judges decide that they want to spread their strike from the Royal Courts of


Justice to the circuit, and the police decide to put up a road block with the help of the Autoguide or the Wizard system, some miners might say that justice was being done.
Of course, other miners and myself would say that we do not believe in infringements of civil liberties, whoever they might affect. Is there anything in the rumour that, as an experiment, that equipment will be used outside the Royal Courts of Justice?

Mr. Cohen: There could be, if the judges upset the Government enough. However, all the signs are that the Government will cave in to that vested interest very quickly. It is more likely that that equipment will be used against the miners, railwaymen and other workers than against the judges. The Government have to keep the judges sweet so that they can punish the railwaymen and the miners in the courts.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that Autoguide could be used to peel off the ringleaders among the judges from those who might be latent supporters of the Government? Is my hon. Friend also aware that the traffic monitoring scheme in London operates automatic video cameras, some of which are not pointed at the traffic? Some are pointed at Speaker's corner, some at the assembly area in Hyde park and others at the centre of Trafalgar square, where no traffic is allowed. There are many points in London where the so-called traffic information systems, designed by the Metropolitan police to monitor traffic movement, are used to monitor pedestrian, civilian movements. Those systems are part of a data-collecting agency. Does my hon. Friend agree that Autoguide could be used for the same purpose?

Mr. Cohen: Yes. The collection of a vast amount of data on individuals is a serious infringement of privacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred to the Wizard system, and for all I know it could have been used during the recent visit of the Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, in which case the system should have been called "The Wizard of Oz". But enough of such frivolity; this is a serious matter.

Mr. Moate: Given his remarkable command of such modern technology, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain something to me. Those who join the Autoguide system voluntarily install in their car a piece of equipment to link them to that system. How will such people be victims of a system whereby they are unknowingly scrutinised?

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman is correct that, initially, the system will apply to those who subscribe to it. The Government, however, want to extend the system to all motorists; for it to work properly, that must happen. In that way, the Government could cut the number of signs on roads and so on. The system, however, has the facility to read all number plates whether one is a member of it or not. That system could be linked up with Wizard for the facial recognition of drivers.

Mr. Skinner: Is Autoguide from West Germany?

Mr. Cohen: The system began in West Germany and in Committee the Minister told us that he had a ride around West Berlin in a car using the Autoguide system. He did not say whether the Germans use the Wizard system.
The ability to trace a person's movements is a serious infringement of civil liberties and it is part of the Big Brother state. The Minister accepted that he did not want such private information to himself, but that undertaking should also apply to other Ministers and to other Government services.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I understand that the Home Office trials were conducted exclusively with equipment made in West Germany. Even if the equipment has any merit, which I doubt, it does not have the merit of adding jobs to our manufacturing industry, which, since the Tories came to power in 1979, has lost about 2 million jobs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will remember that the amendment is concerned with disclosing names. It would not be in order for him to follow up the point that has just been made.

Mr. Cohen: I merely remind the House that the Minister said on Second Reading that the purpose of the system was to improve road safety and good traffic management. Unfortunately, it will let in many other purposes. If the Minister were to uphold his own words on Second Reading and in Committee, he would accept the amendment and ensure that the Bill relates only to road safety and traffic management and does not infringe privacy and civil liberties.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I may be paranoid, but that does not mean that they are not out to get us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said, it is not compulsory to join Autoguide. Even if one does join it, the system does not record the driver. If it is a matter of recording number plates, it is possible for someone to stand by the side of the road recording car number plates as though he is standing on a railway platform recording the numbers of engines or carriages.
When the hon. Member for Leyton spends all his time referring to spy ideas, I recall the nightmare which I shared with the members of the Committee which involves being the person who is allocated to digest the hon. Gentleman's speeches to see whether there is anything new or interesting in them. The hon. Gentleman talks as though he is the third man or, if I might say so after the European elections, "The Green Man". He uses a roundabout way to try to tell the House that he is worried that new information may be provided by the system.
The system is designed to give the driver information on which way to go to reach his destination, and that is all. There is provision for a second tier of information, which, with the consent of Autoguide, would tell the subscriber where his vehicle is. That would be explicit information and there would be powers to ensure that that information is not shared. The system can work well without even the operator knowing the identity of individual vehicles that are receiving route guidance.
Amendment No. 2 is unnecessary. It would give the Secretary of State no more power than that provided under the Bill as drafted. It is technically defective in that it seeks to control the use of information derived from


vehicles when "driver information", which is the term used in the amendment, is defined in the Bill as giving route guidance to vehicles.
The amendments should be resisted. The hon. Gentleman, on reflection, may not wish to press them to a Division.

Mr. Cohen: I have made my point. I believe that these issues will come back to the House in future as problems ensue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords]

Ms. Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 15, line 8, at end insert—
'(12) Before using his powers under subsections (1) and (6) above, the Secretary of State shall seek the views of the relevant highway authorities.'.
The amendment continues the main theme pursued by the Opposition in relation to part II, which is the absence of any reference to local highway authority involvement in deciding where driver information systems operate, which roads should be included or excluded and how any problems should be tackled. The amendment tackles the deficiency by requiring the Secretary of State to seek the views of relevant highway authorities before issuing or amending an operator's licence.
Throughout our discussions, Ministers have tried to have it both ways in their efforts to resist any form of local democratic control over an autoguide operator. The main purpose of the amendment is to enable highway authorities to undertake their traffic management and road safety responsibilities in the autoguide era by having some influence over the implementation of the system.
In responding to amendments in his inimitable style in Committee, the Minister proclaimed:
The rats are already running. Does anyone seriously believe that there are unused rat runs waiting to be discovered by autoguide? Each of us … is aware that people know which routes are a diversion from the main signed route.
A few seconds later, when arguing that autoguide would be less distracting than other means of navigation, the Minister said:
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is sitting in the passenger seat. His wife is driving and she asks, 'How do we get to the next place?' They start looking at maps".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 16 May 1989, c. 65.]
If autoguide is to be commercially viable, it must be aimed at those who do not know all the rat runs in every Member's constituency. It must provide a faster service than simply relying on signed main routes. In those circumstances there must at least be the danger that the use of some rat runs will be encouraged. There are already signs that minor roads are to be included in the autoguide scheme. At the first meeting of the autoguide pilot assessment group, involving the Department of Transport, the local authority associations and the police, the Department would not give an undertaking that minor roads would be excluded from the London pilot scheme, because it was too early to say.
Throughout the Bill's passage, Ministers have warned of the need not to impose constraints on the commercial operators. Of course, the operators will be pressing for a maximum number of roads to be included in the scheme. Therefore, it is essential that Parliament provides the means by which the bodies responsible for traffic management issues—the local highway authorities—will have an opportunity to influence the introduction of autoguide.
On Second Reading, the Minister stressed that the success of autoguide will depend on co-operation between a number of different interests. But he went on to argue:
It is quite important not to set down in advance that local

authorities should be able to have a veto."—[Official Report, 13 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 1102.]
The Minister pursued a similar theme in Committee, claiming:
If we allow too much direct local authority control now, it is likely to strangle the system at birth."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16 May 1989; c. 70.]
Local authorities are rightly apprehensive. At the meeting of the autoguide pilot assessment group, for which the Minister is responsible, the Department said that it could see no reason why any road in London, however unsuitable, should be excluded from the network of roads used to direct through traffic on which the autoguide system should operate in the pilot stage. That is in direct opposition to the Government's own policies as expressed in "Traffic Management Guidance for London, 1987", which says that roads off the designated road network are essentially local roads and through traffic should not be encouraged to use them.
The amendment would provide highway authorities with no extra powers, but they would have the right to be consulted. This is a modest amendment, but it is essential if highway authorities are to have confidence in the legislation. The only alternative would be for the Minister to give a clear undertaking to consult the highway authorities before undertaking his licensing responsibilities.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It may be helpful if I intervene at this stage in the debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on the research that has gone into her speech. She is concerned about a serious point, but I hope to persuade the House that the amendment would not be the right way forward.
It would be difficult to have an autoguide pilot scheme in London without using any minor roads, partly because on approaching central London it is difficult to define a designated road and so exclude a road on that basis.
I take this opportunity to repeat that I have no intention of encouraging people to cross the centre of London, or even to cross inner London, when going from one part of outer London to another. I have been consistent in that, although it takes some people a while to get the message.

Ms. Ruddock: The Minister says that he does not seek to encourage that, but surely that is the purpose of autoguide.

Mr. Bottomley: The purpose of autoguide is to make sure that people take efficient routes. It is inefficient to put traffic on the wrong roads. I spend a lot of time explaining to people that many of the rat runs to which they are so devoted not only take them a longer distance, but a longer time. Studies carried out on the A3 in Kingston showed that. However, it is difficult to persuade some people of the truth of that. Autoguide would demonstrate that more easily.
We all know that dealing with junction problems using designated roads, primary route networks and even trunk roads, gives travellers a greater advantage, as well as those residents who are no longer disturbed by the rats who are doing the running. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her logic at the beginning of her speech. I am not sure that it took the discussion much further forward, but Freddie Ayer would have been proud of it.
Under the amendment, if the Secretary of State wants to make a change before amending a licence in London or within the area of the M25, he might have to consult 20 or 30 local authorities. As to what will happen initially, both the consortia interested in the pilot scheme said that they will make presentations to local authority associations and to the police.
The critical question is whether there will be any possible gain by sending volumes of traffic down the wrong roads. The answer is no. But it cannot be sensibly argued that one should work only with local authorities to effect consent, or go through a relatively long procedure before introducing a scheme.

Ms. Ruddock: If the Minister is confident that the system will work well and give rise to no problems, why on earth does he not concede our argument and give local authorities the right to be consulted?

Mr. Bottomley: The simple answer relates both to the amendment and to red tape. This is the third or fourth time that the same arguments have been rehearsed. The detail may have been modified, but the points made are basically the same. The hon. Lady agrees that there is no point in trying to divert traffic down the rat runs.
Autoguide is the one system that offers the potential of telling road users which routes will save them time. The hon. Lady is probably aware that the alternative systems, which would not require a licence, were based on a microcomputer whereby one disk would give the motorist the choice of the fastest route, the shortest route, the most scenic route, the route taking him through the greatest part of the hon. Lady's constituency or mine, and so on. It seems to me that we should look for the common sense solution and avoid tying up an innovative project with unnecessary red tape, or tying the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by prohibiting him from making a modification in respect of the M25 without consulting a large number of highway authorities.

Mr. Moate: I go along with my hon. Friend's thesis, but what would be the position if a route perceived by autoguide to be economically efficient turns out to be environmentally unpopular, particularly among the residents of a quiet street? If representations are made to my hon. Friend by a local authority or by a large number of residents, what sanction can he use when saying to the autoguide companies, "This route is bad, it is inflicting a great deal of environmental damage, and it is very unpopular"?

Mr. Cryer: The Minister will be kicked on to the Conservative Back Benches by a ruthless Prime Minister.

Mr. Bottomley: If that is so, I shall join the hon. Gentleman on the rotters' Bench, offering good advice —and I may find myself losing my seat in the same way that he lost his.
It is too early to say that no minor roads should be included in the network. The hon. Member for Deptford agrees with other hon. Members that environmental nuisance is unlikely to arise on an unsuitable road without there being danger as well. We believe that we have found a helpful way forward.
The Department is concerned as much about safety as about traffic management. The two overlap. We think that consultants should be engaged to monitor the operation of the pilot scheme, so that we can learn its lessons—rather

than say that nothing should ever be allowed to go wrong. The arguments have been rehearsed at least three times in the House, and the scheme should be allowed to go forward. It has been established that presentations will be made to local authorities, and when the pilot scheme is in operation we will know whether the fears that have been expressed are justified. If they are, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take that into account.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister's churlish refusal to concede our arguments calls into question the logic of his own arguments. If, as he says, presentations will be made to local authorities, why cannot they also be properly consulted? The Minister told his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) that he is concerned about environmentally sensitive routes being damaged by autoguide. The hon. Gentleman knows that, unless local highway authorities are involved, they will have no power to alter an autoguide route.
The scheme is a form of privatised roads, privatised traffic management and privatised direction system. Unless there is proper licensing linked to the local highway authority, the system will encourage rat running, the use of unsuitable roads by high-speed cars, and commuter motoring.
The Minister says that he does not want traffic crossing central London or an increase in commuter motoring into and out of the area, but he has no powers to stop it. Once a company has been given a licensing system or the power to introduce one through a particular area, with no consultation with the local authority, the Minister has handed over part of the traffic management powers to the small minority of motorists who can afford to subscribe to autoguide, and to an autoguide company that is not interested in the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, the environment or the community. It will be interested only in getting someone in a company car from A to B by a faster route. That is the motive behind the autoguide system.

Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend give some thought to the democratic rights—if any—that would be enjoyed by a resident of a street that was being rat run because of the system?

11 pm

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Such a resident would probably have no rights at all. In Committee I discussed with the Minister and others the potential problems in Finsbury Park, where I live. The area is bedevilled by rat-running commuters. It is appalling: every morning there are traffic jams everywhere, with people speeding through in expensive cars, often very dangerously. Local residents are rightly angry about it. The local authority, Islington council, has done what it can, but its powers are limited because it does not control overall traffic movements.
If the autoguide system comes in, roads that we should like to be restricted or closed—or subject to the introduction of speed humps—may become subject to an autoguide system. What will happen to the local community then? Does a road with autoguide beacons down it automatically become a major through road? I suspect that it does.
Such matters may not seem important to the Minister. I fail to understand, however, why valuable parliamentary


time, the expertise of dozens of people in the Department of Transport and a great deal of money should be expended to introduce a system that denies local highway authorities the power to plan their traffic management schemes properly, and merely enables a small number of people to travel through urban areas faster. That energy, money and parliamentary time should be spent on promoting public transport and supporting the efforts of highway authorities to make urban roads safer, rather than more dangerous, as they will become under this system.
At the heart of the matter is the question of local authority consultation. The Minister gives us all the honeyed phrases that he can: he says that he will talk to local authorities and give them demonstration runs. He offered a demonstration run to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and myself, but unfortunately neither of us could attend on the day that he mentioned. I hope that the offer will be repeated. The Minister offers formal meetings, but he does not concede the basic power that is essential if highway authorities are to plan traffic movements properly.
This is a recipe for anarchy, danger and the undermining of public control over traffic systems. Control is being handed over to a private company whose only interest is in making money for the minority of motorists who can afford to subscribe to it. It is an outrage: the least that the Government can do is concede the right and powers of the highway authorities.

Mr. Cryer: I support the amendment, because it makes sense. One of the things that worries me about the system is that the private operators who are behind it will be subject to inbuilt pressure to promote all sorts of short cuts. Motorists will feel that if they save five minutes through the system others should be persuaded to join it.

Mr. Corbyn: I apologise for intervening on my hon. Friend's speech so early. Does he agree, however, that although the initial promotion is aimed at urban areas, a spread to rural areas could pose a danger of heavy traffic being directed down rural roads which would provide a rapid short cut for those who knew their way around? The danger does not apply just in urban communities such as the one that I represent. It could apply equally to country lanes and smaller roads.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. I represent an urban area, one third of the city of Bradford, and in the city as a whole there are about 200 road improvement schemes designed to protect pedestrians and separate traffic from pedestrians because of the intrusion of vehicles into densely populated areas. The local authority cannot finance such schemes because of a shortage of money from the Department of Transport.
I have taken up with the local authority many cases of constituents complaining that cars are running down their roads, taking corners quickly and making use of side roads as short cuts. They say, "We have no way of stopping them, our children are in danger as they go to and from school and the volume of traffic is increasing." Because of that increased volume of traffic, motorists are bound to seek short cuts. Indeed, the autoguide system may result in such short cuts being invoked as part of local authority planning procedures.
That makes it all the more important for the citizen to have the right of representation, with the local authority having the right of consultation. Such a right for the citizen should be built into the scheme from the beginning. The citizen should not be excluded from jurisdiction over the development of traffic routes where those routes impinge on ordinary urban, and possibly rural, life.
Traffic is a growing problem, a despoliation of our cities and villages. Acceptance of the amendment would not inhibit the Minister, but it would establish a pattern for involvement by the public in a highly sensitive area. At present, when I take up constituents' complaints, the local authority replies, "We do not have money to finance road improvements, even though, on existing trunk and minor roads which are well used, there is loss of life and limb."

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend referred to problems in urban areas and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) made the same point but relating to country lanes. Is my hon. Friend aware that coaches and heavy vehicles could come within the autoguide system? With unrestricted access, so to speak—if the amendment is not accepted—those heavy vehicles could find their way down country lanes and residential streets.

Mr. Cryer: That is a potential development and proves that we must have a consultative process for the citizen. People are more inclined to accept developments if they feel that they have some safeguard. After all, the Department of Transport is not generally known as the people's friend. People do not readily turn to that Department for guidance when road schemes are mooted.
If the system is successful—I have reservations about that—commercial vehicle operators will make calculations about delays because they lack knowledge about routes. They will want to use their vehicles in as efficient a manner as possible. Consequently, they will want to use the system to speed up distribution of supplies.
The Government have capitulated yet again to the Commission. Instead of rejecting completely the introduction of 40-tonne vehicles on our roads, they agreed to vehicles heavier than 38 tonnes being allowed on to them. Now we have the grim prospect of even heavier vehicles on our roads.
Instead of turning down the amendment, on the somewhat dubious basis that it would hinder the swift implementation of the measure, the Minister should take people—in particular, local authorities—into his confidence and say that they have a part to play if controversial aspects of the system impinge on people's peace of mind and safety. Initially, very few people might want to take up that right. Local authorities may welcome the system and say that it will lead to improvements. However, the amendment is a safety net, and I urge the Minister to accept it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that our relationship with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities is not as good as it should be. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) reminds me that in her day it was fine. I spent most of today with the AMA. Nobody raised any problems over autoguide. They had plenty of opportunities to do so. There are many examples of co-operation between the Department and local authorities.
The Government look after only 4 per cent. of the roads. Most highway authorities look after roads for the Department, as well as looking after their own 96 per cent. The partnership works well. No local authority association has much to fear from autoguide. The president of the AMA said that he is aware of the monitoring arrangements that have been agreed with the local authority associations. They are members of the autoguide pilot assessment group. The police are also members of that group. The operators will be working closely with individual local authorities. The safety points that I made are serious and important. The House should reject the amendment and get on with the pilot scheme. When we have had experience of it we shall be able to judge whether the fears are justified.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister says that we shall then be able to judge whether the fears are justified. Surely it would be much better if he said that the Department will consult local authorities over the implementation of the scheme, if that is what it is minded to do. He is not prepared to give local authorities the opportunity to influence the scheme.

Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure that to say something twice will help either the House or the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing either in autoguide or in the Bill that in any way overrides the power of local authorities to manage traffic. 'That deals with the point that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and others are rightly concerned about and with the point that I have been concerned about for three and a half years—that through traffic should be on through routes. Traffic management requirements are automatically built into the autoguide system. If they were not, people would be required to do things that are unlawful as well as not very helpful. Unless we recognise that fact, we shall not make much progress.
We must ensure that traffic can move efficiently because it knows which route to take. As soon as more than a sample number of vehicles use autoguide, we cannot usefully send them down roads that are not suitable for them. It is essential to get rid of misguidance through ignorance rather than to try to abuse more and more parts of the road system, especially in urban areas.
Unless general traffic management action is taken, encouraged by the Department, which acts as a sort of community telephone exchange for local authorities, the car will remain the master of most urban areas. The lesson that we have learnt from the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and from a growing number of areas in the United Kingdom is that the car can be excluded from many areas by traffic management, not by trying to write too much detailed red tape, however natural it may be for the Labour party to do that, into the Bill.

Ms. Ruddock: The Minister does not seem to recognise that, because of the operation of autoguide, it is just conceivable that new traffic management problems will arise. If a lot of vehicles are sent down a road because it happens to be somewhat more empty than others, it might become a new rat run. Residents may go to their local authority and ask for restraining measures to be taken. The local authority would then come into conflict with the Minister's Department, as its measures might redirect traffic on to a designated road.

Mr. Bottomley: That was a helpful intervention. If a local authority introduces traffic management arrangements, autoguide will have to take them into account. Autoguide's existence does not make any difference to the local authority's traffic management powers. Perhaps this debate has been useful as that point has been spelled out clearly. I do not think that I can add a great deal to what has already been said. The hon. Lady has made her point, and it has been taken into account.

Ms. Ruddock: Can the Minister tell me categorically that Autoguide will not be able to object to a new traffic management scheme?

Mr. Bottomley: It cannot be excluded from objecting. The whole point of traffic management schemes is that they are advertised so that people can object to them. It would be ludicrous to tell an operator that it cannot exercise the same rights as any other organisation, body or individual. Autoguide will have no power of veto. A veto exists only when proposals affect designated roads and the Secretary of State can exercise it in accordance with legislation. Unless the hon. Lady is suggesting that Autoguide should be forbidden by legislation from even writing to a local authority saying, "Oi, have you thought that your proposals might have an effect on traffic movement, and we are experts on traffic movement?" there is nothing to fear. I am sure that she is not suggesting that.
The hon. Lady has raised a matter sensibly, I have given a serious, factual answer, and I think that we ought to leave it there.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Bottomley: I would rather not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who can speak on Third Reading, as I have made my point and the House has got about as much out of this debate as it is likely to get.
Amendment negatived.

Clause 12

POWER TO INSTALL APPARATUS ETC

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 16, line 12, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Peter Bottomley.]

Schedule 1

EXISTING HGV AND PSV DRIVERS' LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 23, line 31, at end insert—
'12. The power to make regulations under paragraph 8 above includes power to prescribe the classes of goods vehicle or passenger-carrying vehicle which, by virtue of section 1(2) of this Act, the holder of an existing licence is authorised to drive during the currency of his existing licence.'.—[Mr. Peter Bottomley.]

Schedule 2

PROVISIONS INSERTED IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 29, line 41, at end insert—
`provisional licence" means a licence granted by virtue of section 97(2) of this Act;'.[Mr. Peter Bottomley.]

Schedule 5

DRIVER INFORMATION SYSTEMS: UNDERTAKERS' WORKS

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 42, leave out lines 16 to 46 and insert�ž
'"relevant undertaker" means—

(a) any person or authority authorised by or under any Act (whether public general or local) to carry on any railway, tramway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, pier or lighthouse undertaking;
(b) any person to whom the telecommunications code is applied by a licence under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 authorising him to run a telecommunications system;
(c) any public gas supplier (within the meaning of Part I of the Gas Act 1986);
(d) any holder of a licence under Part I of the Electricity Act 1989 who is entitled to exercise any power conferred by paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 4 to that Act;
(e) the National Rivers Authority or any water undertaker or sewerage undertaker;
(f) any other licensed operator of a driver information system; or
(g) any person to whom this Schedule is applied by any Act passed after this Act;

undertaker's works" means

(a) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (a) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for the purpose of, or in connection with, the carrying on by him of the undertaking mentioned in that paragraph;
(b) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (b) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for the purposes of, or in connection with, a telecommunications system run by him;
(c) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (c) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for the purposes of, or in connection with, his supplying gas as a public gas supplier;
(d) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (d) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for any purpose connected with the carrying on of the activities which he is authorised by his licence to carry on;
(e) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (e) above, any works which that Authority or undertaker has power to execute for purposes connected with the carrying on of its functions;
(f) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (f) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for the purposes of, or in connection with, a driver information system operated by him; and;
(g) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (g) above, the works for the purposes of which this Schedule is applied to him.".'.—[Mr. Peter Bottomley.]

Order for Third Reading read.—Queen's and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Peter Bottomley.]

Mr. Corbyn: We have had a short Committee stage and a fairly lengthy Report stage. Unfortunately, the two stages have been taken separately because of the antics of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). I am not quite sure whether he was trying to let his Back Benchers get home early or he could not keep them here.
Nothing that the Minister has said has altered the basic objection that many of us have to the Bill. It is called a road safety improvement measure, but it does not extend the eyesight testing requirement that many of us believe is necessary. The principal part of it concerns the provision of an autoguide system. The Minister said that Autoguide will not co-operate with local authorities because it does not have to, that local authorities will have no power to stop Autoguide coming in, but that when someone objects to, or supports, a traffic management scheme, Autoguide will be one of the participants in the consultation process. That is the kernel of the problem.
If we want to introduce a traffic management scheme, the people who are normally most affected are local residents, residents of adjoining streets which may be affected by increased or decreased traffic, local highway authorities and the emergency services. It is not normal to take account of objections from a company whose sole interest is to get people more quickly through that community. The Bill is giving a private company a franchise on our roads, which means giving it an unaccountable power for an undesirable end. I hope that the House will recognise that and oppose the Third Reading.
The legislation is of no benefit to those of us who are concerned about traffic movements and safety in inner urban areas. It is of no benefit in improving road safety as a whole. The energies that have gone into drafting the Bill could have been much better spent developing and improving public transport systems and keeping cars out of urban areas. The Minister says that he wants to do that, yet he gives powers to other people to encourage drivers to come into those areas. We would have been better off spending our time making our transport and traffic systems safer and more usable by the majority of the population rather than spending the time on an expensive autoguide system for the minority who can afford it, driving around in expensive cars, rat-running down small urban streets and country lanes.
Many Conservative Members may vote for the Bill. In a few months, when the systems are introduced, or in a few years, when they have been extended to the whole country, the Minister will get representations from many people who want the schemes removed from their area because of the complaints of local residents.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The speech by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is a ludicrous, open distortion which will do him no good. Autoguide's aim is to reduce congestion, mainly by ensuring that people do not get lost and go several times around the hon. Gentleman's constituency, my constituency or that of any other London Member during the pilot scheme. It means that they will find an efficient way of going where they want to go without going off the right track. Most of the tracks will be on the main roads. We are also making 1989 the Year of the Sign and ensuring that signs follow on from each other rather than act like the hon. Gentleman's speech—starting at the beginning, going halfway, getting lost and then picking up in some other direction.
We heard earlier that the scheme would be for the benefit of the friends of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and then we heard that it would be for the benefit of the friends of the hon. Member for Islington, North who have big posh cars. We know, because it was established in Committee, that the local authorities will


maintain their traffic management powers, which are not affected by the Bill. We heard the interesting idea that those who are trying to serve the interests of road users —especially the commercial organisations, including those providing services to constituents in Islington, North, often in vehicles driven by those constituents—should be forbidden to offer a comment on local authority traffic management orders, but those people may know more about traffic management than the hon. Gentleman does.

Mr. Corbyn: Why does not the Minister answer the debate?

Mr. Bottomley: I thought that I had been answering the hon. Gentleman's speech, paying a courtesy to him that he seldom pays to others. The hon. Gentleman does not understand what he is talking about. He does not have the slightest conception of how to make traffic better for local residents. I suggest that he starts reading some of the traffic advisory unit notices that the Department issues. If he will not do that, he might look at some of the joint work of local authority associations. They understand what we are trying to do, and in general support us.

Mr. Corbyn: I was chairman of a planning committee.

Mr. Bottomley: When the hon. Gentleman was chairman, he should have spent more time listening than speaking.
Sensible contributions have been made in the debate, most of them by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who raised serious points, to which we have given serious answers. I commend the Bill to the House. It will improve safety, make driver licensing more efficient and pave the way for new driver information systems which will reduce traffic congestion. It will be a valuable improvement to road traffic law.

Ms. Ruddock: There have been some interesting discussions on the Bill and the Opposition have pressed a number of amendments that would substantially improve it. I am sorry that the Minister has not been receptive to them. Indeed, he has been intransigent on a number of key points, and I know that many people inside and outside the House will be disappointed by his unwillingness to accommodate their concerns. Despite what the Minister said. I stress that those concerns included those put to me by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. As I said on Second Reading, in general we have not objected to the Bill. The proposals in part I, to unify the driver licensing system, are acceptable to us.
In Committee we spent much time discussing clause 6 of part I, which deals with new requirements for motor cyclists. Opposition Members welcome the requirement that motor cyclists take a training course before they are able to drive on the road, and all parts of the motor cycling world were in support of that. However, we were concerned about the applicability of the clause and possible impracticalities. In Committee, we sought several improvements to allow motor cyclists to ride their bikes to and from their courses. They would also have ensured an adequate number of properly qualified and trained instructors and would have set up a register of training centres. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller)

tabled amendments in an attempt to deal with the problem of access to such courses, but, unfortunately, those amendments were not selected for debate tonight.
Access problems may make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to attend the proposed training courses. Opposition Members supported the amendments, and I regret that the Minister has felt unable to do so. I hope that, when the Bill becomes law, the Minister will respond positively if the fears that have been articulated by industry and consumer lobbies are substantiated.
In Committee, as indeed tonight, Opposition Members reserved most criticism for part II of the Bill, which deals with parliamentary approval for autoguide. I have already explained the reasons we continue to press the Government either for statutory local authority, participation or broader terms of reference for the Secretary of State. Once again, I regret to say that the Minister has declined to listen. I regret also that he is unwilling to give local highway authorities their proper role in monitoring and controlling the use of that device. I acknowledge that, as the Minister has said, local authority associations are involved in the autoguide assessment group, and I welcome that. However, the House will recognise the difference between participation in an ad hoc advisory group and a statutory power if autoguide is detrimental to local authority areas.
I have seen autoguide in operation. I am convinced that it is undoubtedly a technical advance and that it will obviously be useful to individual drivers. However, Opposition Members do not believe that it is truly going to ease traffic congestion in London. As I said on Second Reading, it can clearly be useful as a route finder, but the consequence in London is that any motorist would be more inclined to use his car than public transport. That would be its effect on me. Concern that I might not be able to reach my destination conveniently and efficiently is more likely to make me leave my car at home and use public transport in the city. As a consequence of people taking such decisions, any spare road capacity that is found by autoguide will immediately be filled by more cars. As is already clear, there will be more pressure from autoguide operators to include minor roads in the system. After all our discussions, the Minister has failed to convince us that autoguide will do one jot of good in solving congestion in London.
Since Second Reading, we have had the pleasure of reading the Government's thoughts on road policy into the next century. We have learned also that road traffic is up by 6 per cent. in the first quarter of this year and that traffic speeds in the London peak hour are now 11·8 miles an hour, down yet again on the previous survey. A picture emerges, which we all know well, of more cars on the road moving more slowly, costing industry more money and causing more pedestrian accidents. The Government's response in the White Paper is to forecast a traffic explosion of between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. by the year 2025. Hon. Members may like to know the reality of those cold statistics. An increase of 142 per cent. would mean an extra 32·7 million vehicles in addition to the 23 million-odd already on our roads.
This legislation clearly should not have been the priority for dealing with traffic problems in Britain. The Minister will need more than autoguide and new driver licensing to help him deal with those problems if his own Department's own forecasts become a reality. Therefore, Opposition Members give the Bill a limited welcome.
Naturally, we regret that the Government have not accepted our assistance in improving it. In particular, once again, the Minister has spurned real partnership with the local authorities.

Sir Hector Monro: I share with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) severe reservations about the operational effectiveness of clause 6, and I am sorry that we could not debate the provision tonight.
The Motor Cycle Association of Great Britain, the Auto-cycle Union—of which I am president, and which runs motor-cycle sport in this country—and the industry are very concerned about how the clause will operate in practice. The Minister will establish and improve centres to which learner motor cyclists go to receive training. In principle, we welcome that. Much will depend on where the centres are, however. In rural areas, motor cyclists may have to travel 50 miles to a centre—in Scotland, perhaps even 100 miles. How will they get there, and, if they happen to require additional training and do not qualify for a certificate the first time, how will they get home? Will they have to leave their motor bikes at some remote aerodrome and, try to get a bus home—if there is one?
The Minister does not seem to have addressed such practical problems in clause 6, and I hope that he will announce that he proposes to draft regulations that can be efficiently and effectively adhered to by learner motor cyclists. After all, we want to encourage motor cycling; it is a healthy sport and a healthy way of getting to work or travelling about in the normal course of one's life. We should not put difficulties in the way of people obtaining motor cycle riders' licences once they have received proper training. Yet clause 6—perhaps with the best of intentions —sets out to make matters as difficult as possible for the learner.
The industry assures me that even if we had 1,000 centres, there would be only one centre every 80 square miles. I suspect that there will be fewer centres than that and that the distances will be much greater. Some years ago, when we started to close the driver vehicle and licensing centres dotted round the country, I pointed out that there would be a great deal of difficulty if the centres became too remote. I suspect that exactly the same problem will arise with the training centres for motor cyclists.
Before we give the Bill its Third Reading, we want assurances from the Minister that he will be supportive and sympathetic to the training of motor cyclists. Under clause 6 as drafted, that will be impossible. I want to hear that there will be regulations to allow motorcyclists to ride to and from centres before they have received their proper licences. If that does not happen, the training exercise will fall flat on its face and we shall fail in our objective.

Mr. Cryer: I am disappointed that the Minister was not prepared to allow the statutory involvement of the local authorities in the autoguide system set out in part II of the Bill.
These provisions will remain in force until further legislation is produced for our approval, and it would have been useful to allow the local authorities to be involved from the start. That could perhaps have been done by regulation at the discretion of the Minister; at least that would have been a good basis on which to build for the future.
The Minister said that he wanted to make traffic better for local residents, and that he thought that autoguide would help to achieve that aim. Local authorities are involved in making traffic better for local residents. Traffic is one of the cornerstones of local councillors' involvement and the representations that are made to them, and local councillors of any political party ignore representations about traffic hazards at their peril. I have made representations about Manchester road in my constituency, because old people cannot cross that busy trunk road. Even that local authority—a Tory-controlled local authority—says that it simply does not have the money at the moment for a scheme that it wants to institute because it has a high priority as a traffic improvement measure. That local authority is of roughtly the same political complexion as the Minister. Bradford council is, of course, rather Right-wing, whereas the Minister considers himself to be a softy in the centre—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: No—Right-wing.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister corrects me. He is Right-wing under the so-called "liberal" image. However, although the council and the Minister are Right-wing extremists, even Bradford council is complaining that it is not getting money from a Right-wing extremist Minister to carry out road improvements. If the Minister's aim is to make traffic better for local residents, surely his priority should be not to spend Civil Service time in producing a scheme which inevitably, although private money is involved in financing it, will cost the taxpayer money in its drawing up and administration, in conjunction with the private consortia. His job should have been to get more money out of the Treasury to give to local authorities.
The Minister obviously holds local authorities in some disregard. If he held them in proper regard, he would obtain money for them for improving traffic schemes, such as the scheme I have mentioned, which would enable local people living near the road to cross in greater safety. Many of them are elderly people who are hesitant to use an underpass about half a mile away, particularly at night. They are apprehensive about using poorly lit corridors at night because of the threats they seem to hold.
The Minister's first priority should be to get money from the Treasury for local authrities. His second should be to give local authorities some means of being involved in the application of these schemes. Failure to do so will lead to a build-up of resentment not only among ordinary citizens who are concerned about the encroachment of traffic, but among Conservative councillors, who feel that they should be better consulted and better involved, rather than having simply a nominal involvement in a supervisory committee which has no statutory basis.
As the Minister knows, Ministers come and go. With a reshuffle in the offing, it is conceivable that some Ministers at the Department of Transport will go. A Minister who gives an assurance here that he understands the position of local authorities and will ensure that their non-statutory involvement is retained does not guarantee the position for


other Ministers. The position can be eroded overnight "at a stroke," to use a phrase from the past of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who used to wield such influence in the Tory party. Whatever platitude one wants to use, there is nothing to beat putting provisions in a Bill so that they become law. Local authorities know where they stand, citizens can have recourse and Ministers cannot renege on a previous Minister's commitment. That is the important point, so I am sorry that the Minister was not prepared to be more accommodating to the sensible propositions put forward tonight.

Mr. Cohen: The Bill is called the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill. It is no coincidence that as well as including provisions for driver information systems in the Bill, the Government also brought out "Primary Route Signing in London—Proposals for Change", a nice, glossy leaflet which talked about the £35 million lost because signs are not provided properly for motorists around London. Yet when I raised with the Minister whether the signing would take into account being able to enforce a heavy lorry ban, which the Metropolitan police say that they cannot enforce because of inadequate signs in London, he said that that was not the purpose of the glossy leaflet. He said that although taxpayers' cash would be used to improve signposting, there would be no heavy lorry ban in London. That idea should have been incorporated not only in the proposal to improve road signs, but in the road traffic driver information system because heavy lorries should not go down residential streets at unsociable hours. I hope that the Minister will return to that point at some stage.
The Bill is also supposed to be about road safety and the Minister has referred to it as a Bill to help avoid accidents. Getting rid of accidents is a key part of the Minister's case for the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said, the Minister has refused to include in the Bill provisions on eyesight and medical fitness tests for drivers. The House will have to return to that point at some stage. We must have eyesight testing. It should be free and should certainly not discriminate on the basis of the wealth or income of the motorist.
I refer again to coaches in connection with this point about accidents. If coaches were on the autoguide system, there might be more accidents involving coaches in residential roads. I remind the House of the terrible accident last week in which a couple of people were killed. Hon. Members will have seen the amazing photographs of the car that was crushed down to 3 ft. The person inside it survived while people on the coach died through being flung about.
I had hoped that the Minister would bring forward on Report proposals for seat belts for all passengers in all coaches. I know that the Minister cannot insert such provisions in the Bill now, but I hope that he will come back to this point because it is serious—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are now on Third Reading and that he must discuss what is in the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: Yes, I appreciate that. On this point, the Bill refers to rat running or the potential for rat running on

the part of the Autoguide company. As my hon. Friends have said, that is why it is vital that the local authorities should have been and should continue to be consulted fully before such systems are installed in their areas.
I broadly welcome the autoguide system for route guidance. We should take advantage of what new technology can provide for drivers. However, the serious snags should be sorted out at the outset. Local authorities must have a role in deciding the routes. It is all very well for the Minister to say that local authorities can still make their traffic management schemes, but Autoguide Limited might take local authorities to court if they tried to impose restrictions on it. Such companies could argue a case of restraint of trade if they could not use whatever roads they like.
We know that in privatisations Conservative Members always stress that restrictions should be removed from private companies so that they can do what they like. They say that that will be of benefit. However, such freedom from restrictions will not benefit the local residents of the areas where the rat running is taking place. Local authorities should have been involved because Autoguide Limited will be responsive to its customers, the motorists, but not to the residents, who are the key group that the local authorities are there to protect.
I shall not repeat all that has been said about civil liberties except to say that the autoguide system contains the potential for abuse in tracing motorists' movements, thus invading the privacy of innocent motorists.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said, the appalling congestion in central London—and, for example, in Islington and in Leyton High road, all around the Green Man roundabout —is an indictment of the Government's policies. That congestion has occurred without a rail dispute, so it is no use blaming it on that. It was there today and it will be there the day after the rail dispute. Autoguide will do nothing to alleviate the position; indeed, it will encourage more car use. Although I welcome the new technology, I think that we should have been sorting out the snags at this stage. However, we will have to come back and deal with them.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: With the leave of the House I shall reply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned motor cycling. Compulsory training will be introduced only when there is adequate nationwide coverage of training centres. The Bill provides for regulations giving exemptions from compulsory training to persons in prescribed circumstances and areas.

Mr. Gary Waller: Does my hon. Friend accept that there could be a trade-off bringing in a system relatively early, which would be in the interests of safer motor cycling, and having sufficiently broad regulations to allow certain exemptions? Unless there are reasonable exemptions, it might not be possible to introduce a scheme as early as one would wish.

Mr. Bottomley: That is correct. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening at this stage, because I know that, if provoked, he could equal the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) in exploring the issues at great length.


I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for their motor cycling interests.
The power is already in the Bill to provide exemptions from compulsory training—for example, for those residents of some Scottish islands and of the Scilly Isles where there are no training facilities. We shall be looking for a balance between trying to get the benefits of initial training for as many people as possible as soon as possible, while trying to remember the practical disadvantages for those for whom it is difficult to have proper provision. Those are points on which the Government will wish to keep an open mind.
In Bradford, while it was under the control of both political parties, central Government have given very substantial help to improve the road network, for which I believe the people of Bradford are grateful. A through road allows traffic calming in many other areas. That in essence overrides what autoguide will be doing. I remind the House that the autoguide provisions bring in a system of licensing and do not abolish one. On those grounds, I believe that it will be greatly welcomed.
Although it is not within the Bill, I want to say a word about the terrible coach crash on the A286 just north of Midhurst. I visited the scene and I think that it would be wrong for any of us to prejudge the cause. However, I want to repeat the advice that I gave at the scene, which is that anyone sitting on the exposed seat of the coach would be well advised to use another seat or, if one is fitted, to use a seat belt. The House has made it a requirement that all new coaches should have seat belts on those front seats. It is also worth noting that, had that coach been built 15 or 20 years ago, it would have collapsed in the crash—it did not.
On general road safety points, I would say that if some hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, go on wanting things that do not work, and opposing the things that do work, we will not see the continued reduction in road casualties of which the country can be proud.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 11.

Division No. 279]
[11.48 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Chris


Allason, Rupert
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Benyon, W.
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Peter
Curry, David


Bowls, John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brazier, Julian
Day, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Devlin, Tim


Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; CI't's)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Burns, Simon
Dover, Den





Dunn, Bob
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Durant, Tony
Norris, Steve


Fallon, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Favell, Tony
Page, Richard


Fishburn, John Dudley
Paice, James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Forth, Eric
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Freeman, Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


French, Douglas
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Redwood, John


Gill, Christopher
Riddick, Graham


Gow, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Rowe, Andrew


Gregory, Conal
Ryder, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Ground, Patrick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hague, William
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hamilton, Neil (Talton)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawkins, Christopher
Shersby, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hind, Kenneth
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Stern, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)
Stevens, Lewis


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Knapman, Roger
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sumberg, David


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Summerson, Hugo


Knowles, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Latham, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thurnham, Peter


Lightbown, David
Tredinnick, David


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Maclean, David
Waller, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Malins, Humfrey
Warren, Kenneth


Mans, Keith
Watts, John


Maples, John
Wells, Bowen


Marland, Paul
Wheeler, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Miller, Sir Hal
Wilshire, David


Mills, Iain
Wolfson, Mark


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wood, Timothy


Moate, Roger
Yeo, Tim


Monro, Sir Hector



Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Neale, Gerrard
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Neubert, Michael
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Nicholls, Patrick



NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Pike, Peter L.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Clay, Bob
Vaz, Keith


Cohen, Harry



Dunnachie, Jimmy
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Meale, Alan
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PETITIONS

Badgers

Mr. Alan Meale: The petition, signed by J. Barrington, A. E. Smith, J. M. Bryant, S. E. Rocks, N. Couldry and P. A. Mingo concerns itself with petitioning against the facts that badger setts in the United Kingdom continue to be frequently attacked by persons using spades and terriers, and that the Badgers Act 1973 does not


include provisions for the confiscation of dogs or for disqualification from keeping dogs as penalties for convicted badger baiters.
The petition contains more than 100,000 signatures collected by the League Against Cruel Sports, plus another 400 in support provided by the borough of Cheltenham and its local paper the Gloucestershire Echo.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take all such measures as lie within their power,

1. to protect badger setts from unlicensed damage or destruction.
2. to provide courts with the powers for the confiscation of dogs and disqualification from keeping dogs as penalties for those convicted of using dogs in offences against badgers. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

12 midnight

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: A petition from Mr. J. E. Hicks and 100,000 others:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Sheweth:—

1. that badger setts continue to be frequently attacked by persons using spades and terriers.
2. that the Badgers Act 1973 does not include provisions for the confiscation of dogs or disqualification for keeping dogs as penalties for convicted badger baiters.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take all such measures as lie within their power,

1. to protect badger setts from unlicensed damage or destruction.
2. to provide courts with the powers for the confiscation of dogs and disqualification from keeping dogs as penalties for those convicted of using dogs in offences against badgers.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

EC Institutions

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House the question of the relationships between these Houses of Parliament and the European Economic Community institutions.
I am also grateful that so many of my hon. Friends have thought it worth spending another half an hour in the House after a long day debating the many Bills that have come before us. It is a sign of how important these issues are to hon. Members that they are prepared to stay after midnight when such items traditionally come up for debate. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who will be answering the debate.
These issues have gained great prominence in recent weeks as a result of a hard-fought European election campaign for the European Parliament and the acceleration in pace of the measures now coming before the various national Parliaments of the EC member states as the 1992 endeavour gathers momentum.
I am one of those who welcome the 1992 proposals. I have always wished to see the creation of a genuinely common market with freer trading between the member states and beyond the boundaries of the European Community into the wider world.
That process will create much greater prosperity and it is the free enterprise system worldwide which is now demonstrating just how much it can do by way of giving people freedoms, liberties, choices, a better standard of living and better moral and spiritual choices than the totalitarian systems that have been on offer in the post-war world.
The citizens of western countries can turn to their flexible friend, the Barclaycard, to assert their right to purchase a wide variety of goods and services of their choice, supplied in a competitive market place by their fellow citizens in their roles as employees, employers and entrepreneurs in a host of businesses; whereas in eastern Europe and the other totalitarian regimes, rather than turn to the Barclaycard, people can only clutch the ration book and queue at the local state shop to see what tawdry goods might be available for however many hours they might have to wait to get any goods at all. There will be little choice, little joy, and little opportunity to enjoy the benefits of enterprise, because enterprise is stifled where freedoms are stifled.
Much remains to be done to realise the vision of a genuinely open and free market in Europe. I am glad that the Government and my right hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply have been in the forefront of many moves to deregulate European markets and in carrying on the task of creating the conditions in which more trade, commerce and entrepreneurial activity can flourish.
The most recent report shows that we are only at the halfway stage. Out of the 279 measures that comprise the 1992 enterprise, half remain to be drawn up and to go through all the procedures necessary for agreement on them to be reached. There should be greater mutual recognition of the need to speed the process of gaining acceptability of them by all member states, rather than concentration on harmonisation for harmonisation's sake


and trying to construct the perfect Euro-product or service —when it would be reasonable to accept each other's products and services and the diversity of the market places that they imply, in order to improve trade and to achieve greater prosperity.
I believe that the European Community now recognises that need, and there is evidence that faster progress is being made with introducing the various measures through greater use of mutual acceptance rather than harmonised standards. There is also some understanding that in some areas it is not always possible to develop the perfect, single, Community-unified answer—as with patents and patent offices, for example—and that it may be necessary to proceed through better understanding of the differences that exist in member states.
Britain is in the forefront of liberalising capital movements, in insisting on deregulation of the telecommunications market, and in arguing strongly for the deregulation of air traffic in tackling the scandal of air fares in Europe being so much higher than those for travelling comparable distances in the United States of America. It has also campaigned for the benefits of deregulation to be enjoyed by the abolition of lorry quotas, and for changes in cabotage arrangements in shipping and in public purchasing—where a whole range of items should be open to competitive tendering and purchasing across frontiers.
We shall know that the Common Market has truly arrived when we see French civil servants travelling round in Nissans built in the United Kingdom, or the German public able to buy British insurance policies. In the same way our country will benefit from many of the goods produced in other member states.
It is a great task, and the Government should concentrate the Commission's mind on ensuring that 1992 is delivered before other, larger steps are attempted towards the creation of a more unified European state—the creation of a federal state.
Among the problems to be confronted is the legislative backlog. Although the Community has made progress with many of the directives necessary to complete the 1992 endeavour, many more remain unimplemented. Of the last 68 directives that have been through all the processes to become good European law from the point of view of the European institutions, only two have been carried into effect by national processes and Parliaments to become effective in the territories of the Community's member states. That only two out of 68 directives should have done so is a sign of the size of the task, and of how much needs to be done even to implement the work completed so far.
Britain is the best of all member states at implementing and enforcing directives, and others need to be persuaded —by negotiation and perhaps diplomacy—by member nations watching their behaviour that, if the Common Market is to mean anything, the directives must not only be approved and passed but enforced in every territory. Italy in particular has a long way to go before it reaches the standards achieved by this country.
The Commission and the European institutions are also selective in the way in which they look at the treaty provisions. The way in which some of the federal ambitions of the European institutions are being developed lies in picking on a particular clause in the treaty

and deciding that it provides cover for an extension of powers that was never knowingly or willingly granted by the member nations, through their original treaty obligations, or by the member states' Parliaments through their understanding of the workings of the original treaty and the Single European Act.
Yet there are other extremely important clauses in the treaty that seem to go unenforced. I am thinking particularly of articles 104 to 109—important articles relating to balance of payments disequilibria. The intention of the treaty is clear: member states should not run large balance of payments deficits or surpluses, especially not with one another, and action should be taken to tackle such imbalances.
Anyone considering the problem of European trade between member states would immediately spot one large structural problem: the German surplus. I have written to the Commission, and have been told that it is a difficult problem and one which the Commission would not like to tackle under the treaty articles, because it is too busy tackling others under other treaty articles. The existence of the exchange rate mechanism, with the particular parities chosen for the deutschmark, may be one of the causes of the persistent German surplus with almost all the other member states; the mechanism may be an actual violation of articles 104 to 109, which clearly state that balance of payments disequilibria must be dealt with promptly and recognise that monetary and currency measures may be required as part of a package to deal with the problem.
I welcome the Commission's attempt in recent years to enforce articles 92 and 93 on state aids. Important work can be done to ensure fair trade between member states, and that means that the subsidies paid to certain industries —espcially certain public enterprises—need to be rolled back, so that it is fair for an entrepreneurial business in Britain to compete with a nationalised enterprise in France in the knowledge that the latter will not be unduly favoured by massive subsidy or other protection. The Commission has taken welcome steps in that direction in some recent cases. I hope that the British Government will demand that those articles are strictly enforced, and that the unfair trading practices that remain are given greater prominence when the Commission does its work to see that competition is triumphant.
What concerns the House most is, of course, the problem of scrutiny, and our Parliament faces a severe difficulty in that regard. Matters often come before the House late, when positions have already been adopted by British Ministers attending the Council of Ministers, and common positions may have been adopted in Europe itself. The House is then in the invidious position of having to debate a matter on which a decision has effectively been made, and nothing can be done. I hope that, when reviewing scrutiny procedures, the Government will take seriously all the comments by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who would like such matters to be debated before common positions have been adopted.
I also feel that the Government should recognise that the matters now coming before us under the 1992 programme are of huge importance. For instance, the items in the second banking directive and the other directives relating to an open market in financial services may well entail the revision or replacement of great chunks of legislation passed by the House in comparatively recent


years. They are major items which deserve prime time debate, and I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House would agree with that.
It is important in reviewing scrutiny to remember from where the authority for many of these mesures comes. There has been discussion recently about exactly what was said—at the time of our entry into the European Community and at the time of the Single European Act —about where decision-making power did truly lie and about where sovereignty might rest. I have been examining what was said in the debates to see what the country and the House were told on those momentous occasions when big decisions were taken, both to enter and to modify the constitutional position under the Single European Act.
In 1971, in the debate on entry, the then Foreign Secretary said that great countries with the history of the European nations could not be "dragooned or coerced" into a pattern of political association which one or other of them did not like. He went on to make the case that there always had to be the protection of major national interests under the treaty agreements.
The present Lord Rippon of Hexham, who had put through the individual terms of entry, speaking about the legislation required to join the European Community, was even stronger in his tone. He said clearly that nothing in the measure "abridges the ultimate sovereignty" of Parliament, and he went on to say that there was no question of the measure setting up our entry into the EC making a thousand years of British law "subservient to the Code Napoleon." He reminded the House that it would always have a right of veto.
In 1986, the Minister who will reply tonight put to the House the arguments for the Single European Act, allowing majority decisions to be taken on those items essential to the 1992 programme. In that debate, she said it was only a limited extension of majority voting which would apply only to those issues required for the 1992 programme. She went on to say that it would not lead to a federal union. She reminded the House that the Luxembourg accord or compromise remained in place completely untouched and unaffected by those proposals going through as the Single European Act.
I was, therefore, grateful when my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) introduced a Bill recently to reaffirm the importance of our commitment to the European Community and to remind the House of the scope and limits of competence set down under the treaties and the Single European Act. That Bill does much to remind us that the ultimate power to make proposals from Europe comes from this House, freely granted under treaty and by amendment under the Single European Act.
It reminds us that those powers are constrained and that it is important for the British Government not to allow those powers to be extended by abuse by the European Commission, when it was clear that the intention of the House was to allow majority voting to speed the 1992 process, which we welcome, but not to speed other matters, which I believe still require the unanimous approval of all the member states and where national interests should be protected if they are of more importance than the creation of a European solution to a given problem. There will be times when they will not be, and times when they will be, more important.
Can the Minister confirm that the Luxembourg accord is still there and could, in extremis, be used when our national interest warranted it? Does she agree that

majority voting applies only to those measures required to create the internal market and 1992? Does that mean that after 1993, if all those measures have gone through and been agreed, majority voting will no longer exist and will need some reaffirmation, by treaty or by Act of Parliament or both, to complete other objectives that were not envisaged at the time of the Single European Act? My reading of it suggests that there would need to be a renewal of powers if majority voting is to be used for purposes other than those itemised in the 279 measures required for 1992.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that at present it is important to complete 1992, that it would be a distraction to try to negotiate tax harmonisation or a social charter and that this country is not yet ready to amend the treaties to allow majority voting or new powers over taxation and over the movement of peoples and employee rights that would be required if the Commission wished to proceed by majority, rather than unanimity, on those sensitive matters of taxation and important items in the social charter?
Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful to the British negotiating position over the social charter if, while making the point that this country does not believe that these matters are best handled at the European level and that they are better handled at national level, she used her ministerial position to present an alternative social charter to our European partners which contained illustrative ideas that might be useful in their countries, just as they have proved to be useful here?
In the hope that my right hon. Friend might find it helpful, I have given some thought to the type of items that could be included, but time will not permit me—hon. Members will be distraught to learn—to give a detailed exegesis of what they might be. However, they would include the work that this country has done on wider share ownership, on providing people with options over savings for retirement and the purchase of shares in the companies for which they work. It should certainly include the option that individuals ought to be able to buy their own home—whether it be a flat or a house in municipal or Government ownership in member country states—at a discount, since that has been one of our most successful social policies. I think that it would be very helpful if a similar right were to be granted to the citizens of other member states. It might also include health care rights similar to those that are provided by our National Health Service. It should certainly include trade union legislation similar to that which has been so successfully pioneered in this country.
As always in the House, the clock is against me, so I shall conclude my remarks.

Mr. William Cash: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the Minister for allowing me to make four points.
First, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has said and I congratulate him on the way in which he dealt with the subject.
Secondly, since the passing of the Single European Act there is the opportunity, if we believe that it may be possible in future to amend the treaty, to consider adjusting the role of the Commission as against that of the Council of Ministers to ensure that we maintain a fully democratic Europe by putting due emphasis on the role of


national Parliaments and nationally elected representatives who are responsible for discharging their duty to their constituents in matters affecting both the domestic and the European sphere.
Thirdly, there are those who say that we who take the view that we should not move to a federal Europe are living in the late 1960s or late 1970s. I take the view that we are the people who are living in the late 20th century by matching up to the challenges of the global village that we now occupy. It is those who base their argument on the position as it has evolved since the 1950s who are guilty of an anachronism. We are the ones who are living in the world of today. I believe firmly that our view will prevail.
Lastly, I refer briefly to the European Court of Justice and to an interesting article by Mr. Mann in the journal of the Institute of International and Comparative Law in April of this year, which I encourage hon. Members to read. He makes it quite clear, as does Mr. T. C. Hartley, that where there are grey areas in the treaty of Rome there is a very strong tendency for the European Court of Justice to adopt the policy of political integration. As Mr. Mann put it, to paraphrase him, it simply does not listen. We must be extremely wary about that.
I do not have the time in which to develop those points, but I hope that the Minister will refer to them in her reply.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for bringing this important issue before the House. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) for his remarks.
The debate is both welcome and timely, coming so soon after the European elections and the Madrid summit. The relationship between this House and the Community institutions goes to the heart of our membership of the Community. We must ensure that the proper concerns of this House can be brought to bear on all EC-related measures in a way which is satisfactory to the House.
I should like this evening to mention the recent changes in decision making in the EC institutions, to which both my hon. Friends have referred, and then to focus on the role of Parliament in this process, with respect to the scrutiny procedure—which is a matter of concern to many hon. Members—and to the role and competence of Community institutions.
The Government believe that the decision-making process in the Community is working satisfactorily. The good progress that is being made on the single market programme is ample testimony to that fact. This is an area of policy in which the United Kingdom has been in the lead. I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend that it is an area of priority, and it must remain so.
The House is aware that more than half the measures in the Commission's White Paper of 1985 have already been agreed. The Spanish presidency which has just finished achieved the very creditable record of agreement on 68 measures. That is no small achievement.
The progress was made possible only by the political impetus given by the Single European Act. Majority voting was vital for that. In the Single European Act, we provided for qualified majority voting where we want it,

while retaining unanimity where we need it—on taxation, free movement of people and employment matters, for example.
My hon. Friend asked whether I believe that majority voting will be needed once the single market measures have been completed. It would be rather sweeping to say that it might never be needed, because some existing measures, in the light of greater trading outside the Community—say with European Free Trade Association partners—might have to be revised. We must therefore keep qualified majority voting on the statute book, but it must be limited to the areas that were defined in the Single European Act.
If we are to create a genuine common market—the treaty of Rome set us the target more than 30 years ago —we must continue the process of deregulation and liberalisation, as my hon. Friend said. He made that quite clear in his recent paper for the Centre for Policy Studies. It is essential that we take that route and do not take no for an answer. The single market programme is consistent with the deregulatory philosophy which the Government have so successfully put through in Britain—1992 is very much a British song, but it is now being sung throughout the Community and in many other places. That is a measure of the success of Britain's deregulatory and liberalising policies of the past 10 years.
With the extension of majority voting, the Single European Act introduced the co-operation procedure to allow the European Parliament to play a more active role in the decision-making process. I believe that the operation of the new arrangements has produced a smoother inter-institutional process than there was before the Single European Act. Of course, we are still learning from that process, and we must have more contact and more exchange of views between hon. Members and Members of the Strasbourg Parliament.
We must always remember that there has been no significant change in the institutional balance. The power of final decision remains firmly with the Council of Ministers. That is fundamental to the institutional structure of the Community, and it is of direct relevance to the role of the House because Ministers acting in the Council of Ministers are directly accountable to the House, and so it must ever remain.
As I said in the debates in 1986, the Luxembourg compromise remains unaltered. We have made it absolutely clear that, when there is a vital national interest, a nation must be able to avoid being out-voted. That protects the very basis on which we joined the European Community.
The main theme of the debate is the role of the House. I see the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny of decisions taken by the Government in the Council of Ministers and for all legislation to remain at the national level unless there is good reason to tackle the issue at Community level. The Government attach the greatest importance to scrutiny of proposed EC legislation at Westminster. One or two other Parliaments have recently modelled themselves on what we are trying to do here. Nobody has said that it is perfect. A number of parliamentary committees are investigating the matter, and the Lord President of the Council is going into it in great detail. The Scrutiny Committee considers some 800 documents a year, sifting out fewer than 100 for further consideration. I pay tribute to the Committee for its assiduous work. Overall, the system works well, but we are trying to improve it.
We want to avoid unnecessary legislation at EC level. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has drawn attention to attempts to extend Community competence —a matter of concern to many hon. Members. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are alive to the problem. We shall continue to examine all proposals for Community legislation to ensure that they are necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, and that they are in the areas for which there is Community competence we must, however, keep that in perspective. On much Community legislation, the technical question of legal competence does not arise.
Our concern is not so much with competence as with the related but separate concept of subsidiarity. It means that action should be taken at Community level only when it cannot be undertaken as well, or better, at national, or even local, level. The House will be aware that this

doctrine is frequently propounded by none other than the President of the Commission. There is a clear reference to subsidiarity in the Delors report on European monetary union and, more important, it was endorsed by the Heads of Government at two separate points in the Madrid European Council conclusions, on monetary and social issues.
We sometimes find new policy proposals objectionable on subsidiarity grounds, not because they break new ground for Community competence in the legal sense. We can get this right by sound vigilance. That is the way that we intend to go. I have noted—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to One o'clock.